Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in planning and development judicial review proceedings, refuses application by the State respondents to adjourn the substantive hearing of proceedings seeking a preliminary reference to the Courts of Justice of the European Union to determine the validity of the adoption of a list of Projects of Common Interest, thereby challenging the State's inclusion therein of an energy terminal and pipeline, on the grounds that: (1) proceedings in the High Court's strategic infrastructure development list must be heard expeditiously, subject to the administration of justice; (2) the nature of the possible evidence which may be adduced by the applicants is less factual and more legal, and therefore its proposed deponents' workload for and in advance of trial may not be to the extent as deposed now on affidavit in support of the application; (3) practical/logistical difficulties encountered by having to work from home cannot be a valid excuse to adjourn legal proceedings for in excess of three months given the circumstances of the case; and (4) the proceedings may be suitable for a virtual or remote hearing in due course.
Judicial review - planning and development - application for adjournment of hearing of judicial review proceedings - application determined on the papers - judgment published to ensure constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public - strategic infrastructure development list of High Court - active case management - nature of evidence applicant may wish to adduce in its opposition papers - exceptional circumstances criterion - covid-19 security of supply of State's natural gas and electricity systems - working remotely - unable to access full paper and digital files necessary to provide full instructions - whether proceedings suitable for a remote hearing - dispute principally about legal, not factual issues and proposed deponents' evidence may not be a major part of hearing - jurisdictional issue - exhibition of certain documentation by state respondents to proceedings may be attended to in short course - proceedings to be determined as expeditiously as possible consistent with administration of justice - public interest - 'project of common interest' cannot be delayed unnecessarily - in state's interest to have proceedings determined expeditiously - nature and extent of work actually required by deponents considerably less than submitted - practical or logistical difficulties by working from home cannot be a valid excuse for adjourning legal proceedings - hearing may be appropriate for a remote or virtual hearing
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.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now