Introduction

Geraghty v Leitrim County Council (Approved) ([2022] IEHC 730) is a significant case heard by the High Court of Ireland on December 21, 2022. The proceedings centered on an application for judicial review by Karen Geraghty challenging the County Council's decision not to conduct a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for an urban regeneration project in Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim. The core issue revolved around whether the development, which exceeded the 2-hectare threshold, required an EIA under the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided by Mr. Justice Cian Ferriter, concluded that the applicant's application for judicial review was filed outside the statutory time limits set by Section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Consequently, her request for an extension of time under Section 50(8) was denied. The court found that the applicant did not provide sufficient justification for the delay in bringing her challenge within the prescribed eight-week period following the relevant decision by the Council.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key cases to elucidate the principles governing the extension of time for judicial review applications:

• Irish Skydiving Club Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2016] IEHC 448
• Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála [2017] IEHC 46
• SYM Fotovoltaic Energy SRL v Mayo County Council [2018] IEHC 20
• Heaney v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IECA 123 – This Court of Appeal decision provided authoritative guidance on the two-limbed test under Section 50(8), emphasizing the necessity of "good and sufficient reason" and that the circumstances leading to the delay must be outside the applicant's control.
• Reid v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 230 – Addressed the principle that substantive illegality must be raised during the decision-making process unless it concerns jurisdictional issues.
• Krikke v Barranafaddock Sustainable Electricity Ltd (Supreme Court, 3 November 2022) – Affirmed that time limit rules comply with EU principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously examined whether the applicant met the criteria for an extension under Section 50(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. This section allows for extensions if the applicant can demonstrate good and sufficient reasons for the delay and that the circumstances causing the delay were beyond their control.

In this case, the court identified the relevant decision date as February 18, 2020, marking the start of the eight-week statutory period. The applicant discovered the threshold breach in August 2020 but failed to initiate proceedings within the extended timeframe, despite having the necessary information to do so promptly. The court concluded that the applicant did not provide adequate evidence to satisfy the dual requirements of Section 50(8), particularly regarding circumstances outside her control.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the strict adherence to statutory time limits for judicial review applications in the context of environmental planning. It underscores the importance for appellants to act promptly upon discovering potential breaches of law. Future cases involving mandatory EIA requirements will reference this decision to assess the validity of time limit extensions, emphasizing that mere systemic or procedural complexities do not suffice to override the clear cut statutory deadlines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

An EIA is a process used to evaluate the environmental consequences of proposed projects before decisions are made. It ensures that potential adverse effects are considered and mitigated.

Section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000

This section governs the time limits within which an individual or entity must seek judicial review of planning decisions. Typically, such applications must be made within eight weeks of the relevant decision or action.

Judicial Review

A judicial review is a legal process where courts oversee the lawfulness of decisions or actions taken by public bodies. It ensures that these bodies act within their legal authority and follow fair procedures.

Section 50(8) Extension

Section 50(8) provides a mechanism to extend the standard eight-week period for judicial review applications if the applicant can demonstrate good and sufficient reasons for the delay and that the circumstances causing the delay were beyond their control.

Conclusion

The Geraghty v Leitrim County Council judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for understanding the stringent application of time limits in judicial review cases related to environmental planning. By denying the extension of time due to insufficient justification for the delay, the court emphasized the necessity for applicants to be vigilant and timely in asserting their legal challenges. This decision not only clarifies the application of Section 50(8) but also reinforces the broader principle that adherence to statutory deadlines is paramount in the legal scrutiny of public body decisions.