Introduction

The case of Jennings & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) (Rev1) ([2022] IEHC 16) was adjudicated in the High Court of Ireland on January 19, 2022. The appellants, Wendy Jennings and Adrian O'Connor, sought a judicial review to quash a planning permission granted to Colbeam Limited for the construction of 698 student bedspaces in Dublin. The core issue revolved around whether the appellants should be required to provide an undertaking in damages to the notice party, Colbeam Limited, as a condition for further prosecution of the judicial review proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Holland, examined whether the appellants should furnish an undertaking in damages before continuing their judicial review of the planning permission. The court dismissed Colbeam's application for such an undertaking, deciding that the requirement was not warranted based on domestic law considerations. The judgment emphasized the discretionary nature of imposing undertakings in damages, especially when the proceedings do not currently impede Colbeam's development activities. Consequently, the appellants were not mandated to provide financial assurances to Colbeam for potential damages arising from the judicial review.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily referenced several key cases to elucidate the discretionary power of the courts in requiring undertakings in damages. Notable among these were:

• O'Connell v EPA: Highlighted the necessity of undertakings in cases where judicial review could lead to significant delays and potential damages.
• Coll v Donegal County Council: Demonstrated the court's discretion in assessing whether an undertaking is essential, rejecting the notion that it is always required.
• Seery v An Bord Pleanala: Emphasized that an undertaking may be necessary when proceedings have effects akin to an interlocutory injunction.
• Broadnet Ireland Limited v. Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation: Reinforced that the requirement for an undertaking is within judicial discretion.
• R.(Huddleston) v Durham County Council: Illustrated that the public interest can outweigh private interests in environmental judicial reviews.

Legal Reasoning

The court articulated that the imposition of an undertaking in damages is not automatic but rests on judicial discretion. Key considerations included:

• Nature of the Proceedings: The court assessed whether the judicial review had the effect of delaying the development, akin to an interlocutory injunction.
• Public vs Private Interests: Emphasis was placed on whether the proceedings primarily served public interests or were driven by private motives.
• Potential for Damage: The likelihood and extent of potential damages to the notice party if the development proceeded despite the judicial review.

In this case, since the judicial review did not currently hinder Colbeam's development and the potential for immediate damage was not evident, the court found no compelling reason to mandate an undertaking. The judgment highlighted that while private interests of the appellants existed, they did not overshadow the public nature of the judicial review.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in weighing public and private interests in judicial review proceedings. It clarifies that the requirement for undertakings in damages remains a discretionary tool, applied based on the specific circumstances of each case. Future litigants can anticipate that undertakings will not be unilaterally imposed, especially in matters predominantly serving public interests without immediate repercussions on the development activities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Jennings & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors reinforces the principle that the imposition of undertakings in damages remains a matter of judicial discretion, contingent upon the nature and impact of the judicial review proceedings. By declining to mandate such undertakings in this instance, the court highlighted the importance of balancing public interests with the potential for private damages. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases, delineating the boundaries within which courts evaluate the necessity of financial assurances in judicial reviews, thereby promoting a fair and efficient legal process.