Lancefort Ltd. v. An Bord Pleanala

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns a preliminary issue arising from an application by the Applicant Company for leave to apply for an Order of Judicial Review of a decision made by An Bord Pleanala. The issue relates to the time and manner of service of the Grounding Notice of Motion and supporting documentation. Treasury Holdings Limited alleges that the Applicant Company failed to comply with the Planning Acts by not serving the Notice of Motion either within the required time or properly upon the necessary parties, and requests the Court to refuse to entertain the application. The Applicant Company complied with the obligation to lodge the Notice of Motion and supporting documents in the High Court on or before 10 February 1997. However, there is dispute as to whether service was properly effected on all required parties, particularly on An Taisce.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant Company complied with the statutory requirements regarding the time and manner of service of the Notice of Motion and supporting documentation under the Planning Acts and the relevant procedural rules.
2. Whether service on An Taisce was effective and sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements despite questions concerning the method of service.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Treasury Holdings Limited)

• The obligations of an applicant seeking Judicial Review of a decision by An Bord Pleanala must be construed strictly, with absolute certainty in planning applications and strict adherence to rules.
• Service of the Notice of Motion must be effected within the two-month statutory period and before 5:00 p.m. on the last day, relying on precedent that notification must enable recipients to act safely and be legally protected.
• Order 122, Rule 9 of the Superior Court Rules requires service before 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, and service after that time is deemed to be on the following day, which should apply to the Notice of Motion service.
• Service on An Taisce was improper as it did not comply with statutory methods of service for companies, which include service under Section 379 of the Companies Act, service on company solicitors, or service as allowed by the Court.
• Failure to comply with the statutory service requirements precludes the Applicant from seeking relief from the Court.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered the statutory framework governing Judicial Review applications under the Planning Acts and the relevant procedural rules. It accepted that the Applicant Company lodged the Notice of Motion within the statutory two-month period but examined whether service was effected properly and in time on all required parties.

Regarding the timing of service, the Court rejected the argument that service after 5:00 p.m. on the last day was ineffective, reasoning that the statute’s ordinary interpretation includes the entire day unless a contrary intention appears. The Court relied on the Interpretation Act 1937 to conclude that the limitation period includes the whole day of 10 February 1997.

On the issue of service on An Taisce, the Court summarized the facts showing that Mr. Michael Smith, a member of An Taisce’s National Council and its agent for the relevant proceedings, received the documents and was authorized to accept service. Although the statutory methods of service for companies were not strictly complied with, the Court referred to Order 9, Rule 15 of the Superior Court Rules, which allows the Court to declare actual service sufficient on just grounds.

The Court found that An Taisce was adequately informed and suffered no prejudice from the service method used. Consequently, even if the service did not strictly comply with statutory provisions, the Court declared the service sufficient and rejected the submission that the application should be refused on this ground.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision was to ALLOW THE APPLICATION TO PROCEED by refusing the request of Treasury Holdings Limited to refuse to entertain the Judicial Review application on grounds of defective service.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant Company’s application for leave to apply for Judicial Review is not barred by the alleged defects in service timing or method. The Court did not establish any new precedent but applied existing principles flexibly to ensure that procedural requirements do not unjustly impede access to justice where no prejudice arises.