Judgment: 2008-04-10 · Court archive

Supreme Court dismisses appeal over An Bord Pleanála costs

The Court upheld orders striking out James Kenny’s action and refusing to block enforcement of costs awarded in a related Trinity College planning case.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • James Kenny (Plaintiff)
  • An Bord Pleanála (Defendant)
  • Fennelly J
  • O’Donovan J
  • McKechnie J
What

The Court upheld orders striking out James Kenny’s action and refusing to block enforcement of costs awarded in a related Trinity College planning case.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Trinity Hall
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court orders under appeal were made by O’Donovan J on 29 March 2004. One struck out Kenny’s action against the board on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The other refused his application to restrain the board from enforcing a costs order made in its favour in the Trinity case.

The Supreme Court dismissed James Kenny’s appeal against orders striking out his action against An Bord Pleanála and refusing an interlocutory injunction to prevent the board pursuing costs awarded in a related case.

In a judgment delivered on 10 April 2008, Fennelly J said the appeal had to fail following the Court’s decision that morning in an appeal brought by the Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the University of Dublin, also known as Trinity College.

The High Court orders under appeal were made by O’Donovan J on 29 March 2004. One struck out Kenny’s action against the board on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The other refused his application to restrain the board from enforcing a costs order made in its favour in the Trinity case.

Those costs arose from Kenny’s application for leave to seek judicial review of planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanála for the redevelopment of Trinity Hall. The Supreme Court said the application for leave had been refused and that, in the related case, it had dismissed Kenny’s attempt to reopen McKechnie J’s decision. The Court said there was no longer any ground to contest the planning permission.

Fennelly J concluded that the High Court’s order dismissing Kenny’s action against the board must stand and that there was no legal basis to restrain the board from pursuing the costs. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed both High Court orders. The judgment does not state the amount of the costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review