Local residents entitled to fund planning and development judicial review proceedings where they have a legitimate interest in the outcome

Application by the defendants to strike out judicial review proceedings – plaintiffs allege that the defendants have committed the torts of maintenance and champerty – proceedings are bound to fail – proceedings are struck out – defendants were granted leave to seek judicial review of a decision of An Bord Pleanala to grant the plaintiff’s planning permission – construction of a strategic housing development – plaintiffs allege that it became aware of a flyer circulated in the community – alleged that the purpose of the flyer was to motivate third parties to fund the legal costs of the judicial review proceedings – contend there were false, inaccurate and defamatory statements contained in the flyer – flyer circulated by the residents association – alleged that the defendants authored this flyer – order for discovery sought in respect of details of the residents association – institution of defamation proceedings – application to set aside the grant of leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed – court free to consider evidence on affidavit – jurisdiction to strike out should be exercised sparingly – burden of proof on the defendant – plaintiff need only show a stateable case – mainteneance and champerty are criminal offences and torts of considerable vintage - court must assess whether those who provide financial assistance to a litigant have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the proceedings - must be cautious not to place any unnecessary obstacles in the path of those with a legitimate claim – no statement of claim by the plaintiff – sufficient appreciation of the nature of the case to determine whether it is bound to fail – inference to be drawn from solicitor for the defendants refusal to provide details of residential association is that the proceedings are being illegally funded – even if case taken at it’s highest and residents are funding the proceedings – must be shown that third-party funder has no interest and is unjustifiably intermeddling – flyer circulated to residents impacted by the development – residential association has a legitimate interest in the proceedings – Judicial review applicants are entitled to an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court striking out the proceedings as bound to fail.