The High Court has struck out Harry McHugh’s proceedings against the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government over the designation of land in Donegal as a candidate special area of conservation (cSAC). Mr Justice Nolan ruled that Mr McHugh lacked standing to challenge the original designation and that, even if he had standing, the claim was statute barred.
The judgment, delivered on 11 April 2024, concerned land at Cashelgolan, Port Noo. It was owned by Mr McHugh’s uncle, Peter McHugh, when the area was designated in 1997. Peter McHugh did not challenge the designation. After his death in 2002, Harry McHugh became executor and beneficiary and later the land’s legal owner.
The court recounted that Mr McHugh received notices in 2003 and 2006 about proposed boundary changes to the conservation area. The judge found that those revisions did not affect his land and did not create or revive a cause of action. The Minister had argued that the landowner lacked standing and that the proceedings were late; Mr McHugh argued that the notices started a fresh time limit and entitled him to challenge the original designation.
Mr McHugh’s original 2008 summons sought declarations and damages linked to the refusal of permission to plant trees on the land, as well as an order for reassessment of his afforestation application. A 2018 amended statement of claim substantially changed the case and added claims including negligent and fraudulent misstatement, arbitrary decision-making, compulsory taking of land and breaches of constitutional rights.
The judge said the 2018 claim could not be treated as having begun with the 2008 proceedings. He found that the amended claim was out of time, and that matters arising between 1997 and 2006 could not be litigated by serving an amended statement of claim in 2018. He also rejected Mr McHugh’s argument that the Minister had to identify protected species on the precise parcel of land.
The judgment noted separate proceedings concerning the jurisdiction of a property arbitrator appointed in connection with a compensation claim. The judge said those proceedings were not for him to determine, but found that pursuing compensation through both cases created a risk of double recovery. He also said the pleadings were verbose and that he would have been inclined to strike them out as an abuse of process, but did not need to decide the case on that basis.
The court ordered the proceedings struck out under its inherent jurisdiction and Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judgment does not determine the separate judicial review proceedings concerning the arbitrator.