Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Applicant fails to satisfy test for extension of time to bring judicial review proceedings
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses to grant the applicant an eight-week extension of time within which to initiate judicial review proceedings, on the grounds that: (a) he hadn't satisfied the test which would have entitled him to an extension; (b) he didn't advance sufficient reasons explaining why he was unable to make the application in time; and (c) his failure to abide by the time limits was not due to circumstances outside of his control.
High Court - judicial review - compliance with Rules of the Superior Courts - Order 84 - Planning and Development, 2000 - section 50 - 15th April, 2021 - council decision - 4th November, 2021 - An Bord Pleanála decision - planning permission for retention of change of use from tennis court to garden enclosure - construction of polytunnel for flower growing - inter partes application - leave to apply for judicial review - third party submissions - Donegal County Development Plan 2018-2024 - Bundoran and Environs Development Plan 2009-2015 - 12th April, 2021 - planning report from council - 15th April, 2021 - notification of decision to grant permission - 11th May, 2021 - decision appealed - within statutory time limit - preliminary issue - Planning and Development Act, 2000 - section 37 - 4th November, 2021 - An Bord Pleanála decision nullifies that of the council - leave to challenge council's decision refused - Planning and Development Act, 2000 - section 50(6) - applicant hadn't satisfied test - could still satisfy section 50(8) - good and sufficient reasons - circumstances outside applicant's control - end of period was 7th January, 2022 - papers lodged 16th March, 2022 - no ex parte application until 7th November, 2022 - lodging papers in Central Office doesn't stop the clock - he didn't advance sufficient reasons - he was made aware of when the board would determine the appeal - was still able to deal with the initial appeal despite some personal issues - incorrect to say Central Office should have told him of ex parte application requirement - must comply with rules even if not qualified lawyer - not receiving legal aid not outside his control either - substantial grounds argument - not irrational to refuse as submitted by applicant - could still pursue another remedy if conditions not complied with - appeal dismissed - no further order sought - no costs order.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
