High Court of Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Ecological Data Centres Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála [2013] IEHC 34 (22 January 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2013/H34.html
Cite as: [2013] IEHC 34

[New search] [Help]

Judgment Title: Ecological Data Centres Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála

Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 34

High Court Record Number: 2011 364 JR

Date of Delivery: 22/01/2013

Court: High Court

Composition of Court:

Judgment by: Hedigan J.

Status of Judgment: Approved

Neutral Citation [2013] IEHC 34

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

[2011 No. 364 J.R.]

BETWEEN

ECOLOGICAL DATA CENTRES LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND

AN BORD PLEANÁLA

RESPONDENT

AND

WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL, NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY, CLAUS MICHEL, IRIS MICHEL, MARC MICHEL, ALAN BUTLER AND ÁINE BURKE

NOTICE PARTIES

Judgment of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered on 22nd day of January, 2013.

1. The facts are not in dispute in this case. I have been referred to the decision of MacMenamin J. in the case of Urrinbridge Limited v. An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2011] IEHC 400. This case is indistinguishable from that case in its decisive point, i.e. the determination of the application before An Bord Pleanála took effect when notice of the decision was first sent.

2. If that decision is followed in this case, then the applicant must succeed because the appeals of the three Michels were withdrawn on the 16th March, 2011 whilst the appeal had not yet been determined. If Urrinbridge is followed, that determination did not occur until at the very earliest the 21st March, 2011. At that time, the appeals having been withdrawn, An Bord Pleanála no longer had jurisdiction to determine the appeals.

3. Two questions arise –

(a) Does this Court agree with the

Urrinbridge

decision?

(b) If it does not, should it nonetheless follow that decision based on the established principles of stare decisis between courts of equivalent jurisdiction as set out by Clarke J. in Kadri v. The Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2012] IESC 27.

4. I have read the decision of MacMenamin J. carefully and have both read and listened to the very helpful submissions of both sides. I have come to the conclusion that the exhaustive analysis by the learned Judge is a thorough and complete one and that the decision in the judgment is correct. In fact I do not believe there is anything that I can usefully add to that judgment and I am content to gratefully adopt the reasoning contained therein. This being so, the stare decisis issue need not be addressed by me.

5. In the result, the decisive point of Urrinbridge being dispositive of the issue in this case, I find that the applicant is entitled to orders in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of its notice of motion dated the 12th May, 2012.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010