- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dunnes Stores v An Bord Pleanala
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application brought by the Plaintiff challenging the legality of a decision by the Respondent to grant retention permission to the Second Notice Party for minor and cosmetic alterations related to a shopping centre development in The City, The State. The Plaintiff owns the anchor store in the development and has no substantive objection to the alterations themselves. Instead, the Plaintiff's application is motivated by a long-running contractual dispute with the Second Notice Party and a related entity, Company B, involving obligations to fit out and open the anchor store. The application raises a preliminary issue of whether it constitutes an abuse of process, warranting refusal of relief and dismissal.
The procedural history includes a detailed chronology beginning with planning permissions granted by the First Notice Party in 2006 and 2007, a Development Agreement entered into by the Plaintiff and the Second Notice Party in June 2007, followed by disputes over practical completion, arbitration proceedings, and enforcement actions. Despite practical completion being certified and arbitration awards against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff delayed fulfilling contractual obligations to fit out and open the store. The purported planning concerns arose only in 2012, three years after practical completion, coinciding with intensified litigation and enforcement efforts by Company B. The Plaintiff then sought judicial review of the retention permission granted by the Respondent in 2015.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s judicial review application is an abuse of process aimed at securing a collateral commercial advantage rather than genuinely challenging planning permission decisions.
- Whether the court should refuse relief and dismiss the proceedings on the basis of abuse of process.
- The applicability and scope of the abuse of process doctrine in the context of judicial review applications challenging planning decisions.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff asserts that planning compliance issues arose only in or about September 2012, prompting the engagement of new professionals to inspect the development and identify deviations from planning permissions.
- The Plaintiff contends that the planning status of the Centre is fundamentally important and that the judicial review is a legitimate exercise to address these concerns.
- The Plaintiff denies allegations of abuse of process and suggests that alternative enforcement actions were not pursued because the current application is appropriate.
- The Plaintiff argues that the timing and nature of the application do not amount to an abuse of process despite the ongoing contractual disputes.
Second Notice Party's Arguments
- The Second Notice Party contends that the Plaintiff was intimately involved throughout the development process, including inspections and site meetings, and thus could not have been unaware of any planning issues before 2012.
- It is argued that the Plaintiff’s planning concerns are a pretext to delay contractual obligations and to gain tactical advantage in ongoing arbitrations and enforcement proceedings.
- The Second Notice Party alleges that the judicial review application is an abuse of process, as it is not genuinely aimed at addressing planning issues but at securing collateral commercial benefits.
- The Second Notice Party submits that the Plaintiff failed to raise planning concerns during the contractual inspection and objection processes and did not pursue available enforcement remedies.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Cronin v. Mangan and Others (Unreported, Supreme Court, 1994) | Judicial review must not be used for ulterior motives or as an abuse of court processes. | Established the foundational principle that judicial review is a vital remedy but must not be employed for collateral purposes. |
| Grant v. Roche Products (Ireland) Ltd. [2008] 4 IR 679 | Definition of abuse of process; test for mixed legitimate and collateral purposes in proceedings. | Guided the court in applying the test for abuse of process, focusing on whether the proceeding is a stalking horse for collateral advantage. |
| Sean Quinn Group Limited v. An Bord Pleanála [2001] 1 IR 505 | Distinction between legitimate use of court processes and abuse aimed at collateral commercial advantage. | Used to analyze the Plaintiff’s motivation and to caution against devious use of judicial review for commercial gain. |
| State (Toft) v. Galway Corporation [1981] ILRM 439 | Factors relevant to granting certiorari including applicant’s conduct and harm alleged. | Applied to assess whether the Plaintiff suffered any harm justifying the grant of certiorari and to consider conduct in exercising discretion. |
| State (Abenglen Properties) v. Dublin Corporation [1984] IR 381 | Consideration of alternative remedies, applicant’s motives, and discretion in granting certiorari. | Informed the court’s discretion to refuse relief where alternative remedies exist and the application is motivated by collateral benefit. |
| McCauley v. McDermot [1997] 2 ILRM 486 | Cautionary approach to striking out proceedings as abuse of process. | Supported the court’s careful approach in dismissing proceedings on abuse of process grounds only when clearly justified. |
| Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd. [1977] 1 WLR 478 | Ulterior motives and collateral advantage as grounds for abuse of process. | Provided legal framework for determining when litigation constitutes an abuse of process. |
| Lonrho plc v. Fayed (No. 5) [1993] 1 WLR 1489 | Necessity of clear evidence to strike out for abuse of process. | Reinforced the high threshold required to dismiss cases on abuse of process grounds. |
| Cavern Systems Dublin Ltd v. Clontarf Residents Association [1984] ILRM 24 | Conscious failure to disclose proceedings as abuse of court process. | Illustrated conduct that may constitute abuse of process relevant to court’s discretion. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed factual analysis, focusing on the Plaintiff’s extensive involvement in the development process, including contractual entitlements to be informed and to inspect the works, and the active participation of the Plaintiff’s architects throughout construction. The court found the Plaintiff’s claim that planning compliance issues first arose in or about September 2012 to be implausible given this history.
The court noted that the minor and cosmetic nature of the alterations subject to retention permission contrasted sharply with the Plaintiff’s later assertions of material deviations. The timing of the Plaintiff’s planning concerns, coinciding with intensified arbitration and enforcement actions by Company B, suggested a strategic attempt to delay or avoid contractual obligations rather than a bona fide planning challenge.
Applying established legal principles on abuse of process, the court assessed whether the Plaintiff’s application was brought for a legitimate planning purpose or as a collateral commercial tactic. The court concluded that the Plaintiff’s true objective was to gain an advantage in ongoing contractual disputes, using the planning application as a “stalking horse.”
The court further considered the availability of alternative remedies, such as enforcement proceedings, which the Plaintiff had not pursued, and factors relevant to the exercise of discretion in granting judicial review relief. The absence of any demonstrated harm to the Plaintiff’s legal rights from the retention permission reinforced the conclusion that the application was an abuse of process.
In sum, the court found that the Plaintiff’s judicial review application was not a genuine attempt to vindicate planning rights but a collateral tactic to frustrate contractual obligations and delay enforcement.
Holding and Implications
The court’s final decision was to REFUSE THE RELIEFS SOUGHT, decline to consider the substantive planning issues, and dismiss the proceedings on the basis that they constituted an abuse of process.
The direct effect is that the Plaintiff’s challenge to the retention permission fails and the Plaintiff remains bound by its contractual obligations to fit out and open the anchor store. The decision underscores the principle that judicial review must not be used for collateral commercial advantage and affirms the court’s discretion to dismiss proceedings that abuse court processes. No new precedent was established beyond the application of established abuse of process jurisprudence to the facts of this case.
Alert