The High Court has dismissed a planning judicial review against Ireland and the Attorney General, finding that the applicants’ pleadings sought no relief from those State defendants and that continuing the case against them was an abuse of process.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 12 May 2017, concerned only the State defendants’ application to dismiss or strike out the proceedings against them. It did not decide the applicants’ wider challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s planning decision.
Michael Alen-Buckley and Giancarla Alen-Buckley had obtained leave to seek judicial review of the Board’s decision of 14 December 2016 to grant Eco Power Development Limited permission for a wind farm, including eight turbines of up to 126.6 metres, at Knocknamona and other townlands in County Waterford. Their proposed grounds included claims about the scope of the environmental impact assessment, public notification and the treatment of grid connection works.
The State defendants argued that the applicants had sought no relief against them and had not clearly identified how Irish law allegedly failed to transpose the relevant EU directive. They also said the pleadings were too vague to answer and that the applicants were improperly keeping a possible transposition claim in reserve until the Board set out its position.
The applicants maintained that the leave already granted answered the motion and argued that the State defendants might be needed if the Board relied on domestic legislation. They said the planning assessment had covered a wider project than the permission application and that this raised issues about public notice and EU law.
Justice Costello held that prior leave did not prevent a later application to dismiss judicial review proceedings. She found that the leave order had not granted permission to seek relief against the State defendants. Although the applicants argued that two parts of their requested relief covered the State, the judge concluded that, even if the applicants succeeded on the case as pleaded, no relief could be granted against those defendants.
The court dismissed the proceedings against Ireland and the Attorney General under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and separately under its inherent jurisdiction. The judge also agreed with the State defendants’ arguments about the pleadings’ lack of precision, but said that point did not form part of her decision.