Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
John Conway v An Bord Pleanala, The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland, The Attorney General, and Silvermount Ltd (Approved) (Rev1)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an appeal against the constitutionality of section 28(1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act"). The appellant challenged the validity of ministerial guidelines relating to building height and apartments, questioning whether these guidelines were ultra vires the statute and whether the relevant statutory provisions complied with constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and delivered a judgment dismissing it.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether section 28(1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is invalid having regard to Article 28A of the Constitution.
- Whether section 28(1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is invalid having regard to Article 15.2 of the Constitution concerning the exclusive legislative power of the Oireachtas.
- Whether the Building Height Guidelines or Apartment Guidelines were ultra vires section 28(1C) of the 2000 Act.
- The constitutional requirements relating to promulgation and publication of ministerial guidelines as normative rules and their relationship with the principle of legality and the rule of law.
- The role of democratic accountability in assessing whether section 28(1C) infringes the legislative power of the Oireachtas.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| King v Attorney General [1981] IR 233 |
Principle of legality and rule of law; invalidation of vague and arbitrary statutory provisions |
Used to illustrate the constitutional necessity of publicity of laws as part of the rule of law, including publication requirements linked to fairness and legality. |
| Minister for Justice v Celmer (No.1) [2018] IEHC 119 |
Rule of law as a foundational principle underpinning democracy |
Referenced to emphasize that democracy necessarily encompasses the rule of law, supporting the requirement for promulgation and publication of normative rules. |
| In Re Article 26 and the Judicial Appointments Bill, 2022 [2023] IESC 34 |
Constitutional presumption of a state governed by rule of law |
Quoted to support that the democratic nature of the State presupposes rule of law guarantees, including promulgation and publication of normative rules. |
| In Re Article 26 and the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999 [2000] 2 IR 360 |
Right of access to courts and rule of law |
Used to affirm the constitutional foundation of the rule of law in the State’s democratic character. |
| Delaney v Personal Injuries Assessment Board [2024] IESC 10 |
Assessment of usurpation or abdication of legislative power under Article 15.2 |
Applied to clarify the test for whether delegated legislation infringes the exclusive legislative power of the Oireachtas. |
| O'Sullivan v Sea Fisheries Protection Authority [2017] 3 IR 751 |
Delegation of legislative powers and constitutional limits |
Referenced in the context of the constitutional test for usurpation or abdication of Oireachtas legislative authority. |
| Bederev v Ireland [2016] IESC 34, [2016] 3 IR 1 |
Legislative flexibility and constitutional limits on delegation |
Quoted to explain that the Oireachtas may leave broad or narrow choices to delegates provided constitutional terms are respected. |
| Náisiúnta Leicthreach Contraitheroir Éireann v Labour Court [2020] IEHC 303 |
Constitutional constraints on delegated legislation |
Included in the survey of recent case law on the scope of legislative delegation and constitutional compliance. |
| The People (DPP) v McGrath [2021] IESC 66 |
Usurpation or abdication of legislative power |
Applied to define the constitutional boundaries of delegated power and the role of supervisory mechanisms. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the appellant lacked locus standi to challenge the guidelines. The Court held that the Building Height Guidelines and Apartment Guidelines were not ultra vires section 28(1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Regarding constitutionality, the Court addressed two main issues: compliance with Article 28A and Article 15.2 of the Constitution. It concluded that section 28(1C) was not invalid on either ground. The Court emphasized the constitutional necessity for promulgation and publication of normative rules such as ministerial guidelines, grounding this requirement in the principle of legality and the rule of law. There was discussion about the constitutional basis for this requirement, with some judges locating it in Article 5 (democratic nature of the State) and others by analogy to promulgation requirements in Article 24.5.2.
The Court acknowledged that while the guidelines are not statutory instruments and thus do not require publication in the official state gazette, some form of publication is constitutionally mandated to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law.
On the issue of democratic accountability under Article 15.2, the Court agreed that the test is whether the Oireachtas’ exclusive legislative power has been usurped or abdicated. The presence or absence of supervisory mechanisms is a relevant but not determinative factor. The Court found no usurpation or abdication in this case, affirming the Oireachtas’ legislative flexibility within constitutional limits.
Holding and Implications
The Court’s final decision is to DISMISS THE APPEAL.
This decision upholds the constitutionality of section 28(1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and confirms that the Building Height and Apartment Guidelines issued under that section are valid. It reinforces the principle that ministerial guidelines, while not statutory instruments, must be promulgated and published in a manner consistent with the rule of law and the democratic character of the State. The ruling clarifies the constitutional framework for delegated legislation and the limits of legislative delegation, without establishing new precedent beyond the application of established principles.
Click here to read the full judgment