1. Introduction

The case of Dempsey & ors v. An Bord Pleanála ([2020] IEHC 462 (Approved)) represents a pivotal moment in Irish judicial review proceedings, particularly concerning the jurisdictional boundaries of the High Court when parties seek to withdraw their applications. The applicants, Michael Dempsey, Eva Dempsey, Eamonn Courtney, and Jacinta Courtney, initiated a judicial review against An Bord Pleanála, challenging a planning permission issue that invoked obligations under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EIA Directive) of the European Union.

Central to this case were questions about whether the High Court was obligated to proceed with ruling on the validity of the planning permission if the applicants chose to withdraw their proceedings. Additionally, the involvement of the Attorney General raised significant constitutional questions about the court's jurisdiction in such scenarios.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Initially, the High Court contemplated referring a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The reference sought guidance on the court's obligations under the EIA Directive, specifically whether it must rule on the validity of planning permission even if the applicants wished to withdraw their case.

During the proceedings, the Attorney General sought to join the case to provide input on constitutional matters, particularly questioning the court's jurisdiction to rule on a case that the parties intended to strike out. After considering precedents and the Attorney General's arguments, the High Court concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to make the preliminary reference when all parties consented to withdrawing the proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the application without making a reference to the CJEU.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily references several key cases that delineate the circumstances under which the Attorney General may intervene in judicial review proceedings:

• Usk and District Residents Association Ltd v. An Bord Pleanála [2009] IEHC 346; established that the Attorney General can be joined as a notice party to safeguard public interest in matters involving EU law compliance.
• Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2009] IEHC 599; reaffirmed the Attorney General's role in protecting public interest, particularly in cases interpreting EU directives.
• TDI Metro Ltd v. Delap (No. 1) [2000] 4 I.R. 337; demonstrated the court's discretion in allowing the Attorney General to intervene in proceedings of substantial public concern.
• Case C-215/06 Commission v. Ireland; highlighted the potential consequences of a serious breach of EU directives by member states.
• Case C-258/11 Sweetman, EU:C:2013:220; showed the Supreme Court's willingness to support judicial reviews in accordance with EU law.
• I.R.M. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IESC 14; discussed the fundamental principles of judicial decision-making and court jurisdiction.

These precedents collectively underscore the conditions under which the Attorney General may become involved in judicial proceedings to uphold public interest and ensure adherence to EU law.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The High Court's legal reasoning in this case revolved around the distinction between judicial discretion and jurisdiction. Initially, the court treated the matter as one of discretion—believing it had the authority to decide whether to proceed with the reference to the CJEU based on the parties' interests. However, upon further reflection and considering the Attorney General's submissions, the court recognized that the issue was fundamentally about jurisdiction.

The Attorney General argued that, under Irish constitutional law, the court lacks jurisdiction to determine matters where all parties consent to withdrawing proceedings, especially when no live controversy remains. This argument was supported by referencing the principle that courts are courts of law and not of equity; they require a genuine dispute with parties having a legitimate interest in the outcome.

The court agreed, noting that since all parties wished to strike out the proceedings without any order, there was no unresolved issue for the court to adjudicate. Hence, proceeding with a preliminary reference to the CJEU was unnecessary. The court also clarified that EU law does not compel national courts to extend their jurisdiction beyond constitutional limits to fulfill directives like the EIA Directive.

3.3 Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future judicial review proceedings in Ireland:

• Jurisdictional Clarity: It clarifies that the High Court does not possess jurisdiction to rule on cases where all parties seek to withdraw their applications, thereby preventing unnecessary escalation to the CJEU.
• Role of the Attorney General: It reinforces the Attorney General's role as a guardian of public interest, particularly in ensuring that constitutional boundaries are respected in judicial proceedings.
• Judicial Efficiency: By establishing that no reference is required when proceedings are consensually struck out, the court promotes judicial efficiency and avoids superfluous involvement of higher courts.
• Constitutional Boundaries: It emphasizes the supremacy of national constitutional law over procedural aspects of EU directives within judicial proceedings.

Consequently, legal practitioners must be mindful of these jurisdictional limits when advising clients on the initiation or withdrawal of judicial review proceedings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding the intricacies of this judgment requires clarity on several legal concepts:

• Judicial Review: A process by which courts oversee the legality of decisions made by public bodies. Applicants can challenge such decisions if they believe they are unlawful.
• Preliminary Reference (Article 267 TFEU): A mechanism allowing national courts to seek guidance from the CJEU on the interpretation or validity of EU law.
• Jurisdiction vs. Discretion: Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case, while discretion involves the court's ability to make choices within its jurisdiction. This case clarifies that the issue was about jurisdiction, not discretion.
• Striking Out Proceedings: Terminating legal proceedings without a substantive judgment on the merits, often due to procedural reasons or consent from all parties.
• Notice Party: A party that is not directly involved in the case but has a vested interest in the proceedings' outcome. The Attorney General, in this context, acted as a notice party to ensure public interests were considered.

5. Conclusion

The Dempsey v An Bord Pleanála judgment serves as a critical reference point for understanding the limits of judicial authority in Irish courts, especially concerning the withdrawal of judicial review proceedings. By delineating the High Court's jurisdictional boundaries, the case ensures that courts do not overstep into areas reserved by constitutional law, even in the context of fulfilling EU directives.

Moreover, the affirmation of the Attorney General's role underscores the importance of maintaining public interest and constitutional integrity within judicial processes. Legal practitioners and stakeholders must heed these boundaries to navigate judicial reviews effectively, ensuring that procedural and jurisdictional protocols are meticulously followed.

In the broader legal landscape, this judgment underscores the delicate balance between national constitutional law and obligations under EU law, emphasizing that one does not override the other but rather operates within its defined sphere.