Lissan Coal Company [Ireland] Ltd and Anor v An Coimisiun Pleanala and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiffs challenged decisions of Company A made on 21 June 2024: (i) approval of the Blanchardstown to City Centre Core Bus Corridor Scheme under s.51 of the Roads Act 1993 ("the S.51 Approval"); and (ii) confirmation of the associated compulsory purchase order ("the CPO"). The Plaintiffs alleged that certain "Bus Gates" in the Scheme on The Road would deprive their Filling Station business of almost all passing trade and render it commercially unviable, sought certiorari on multiple grounds, and advanced related constitutional and compensation arguments. The State was joined. Judgment was delivered on 30 April 2026. In that judgment Judge Holland quashed the S.51 Approval on Ground 6 (EIA and planning analysis as to the effect on the Filling Station), rejected most other grounds (including Grounds 5 and 8 and the challenge to the defence of statutory authority), upheld Ground 7 in part (insufficient reasons for refusal of an oral hearing) but declined certiorari relief on that ground, and rejected Ground 3 (interpretation of s.213(2)(a) PDA 2000). A final orders ruling was delivered 14 July 2026, including a remittal limited to the Bus Gates' effect on the Filling Station, dismissal of the challenge to the CPO, a declaratory finding about inadequate reasons for refusal of an oral hearing, an extension under s.217(6A) PDA 2000 in specified terms, an order as to costs (Company A to pay 70% of the Plaintiffs' costs), and refusal to certify a right of appeal under s.50A(7) PDA 2000.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the S.51 Approval and the CPO were lawfully made in light of the Bus Gates' effect on the Plaintiffs' Filling Station (EIA and planning grounds).
2. Whether the phrase "any easement, way-leave, water-right or other right over or in respect of any land" in s.213(2)(a) PDA 2000 includes a public right of way (i.e. whether restriction/interference with a public right of way is an "acquisition of land").
3. If the answer to issue 2 is affirmative, whether restriction or interference with a public right of way must be identified in a CPO rather than authorised by s.51 approval as a traffic-management measure.
4. Whether, if the S.51 Approval is quashed, the associated CPO may lawfully remain in force or be extended pending fresh determination of the remitted S.51 application.
5. Whether the High Court should certify a point of law for appeal under s.50A(7) PDA 2000 (statutory test: point of law of exceptional public importance and desirability in the public interest).
6. Final relief issues including remittal terms, declaratory relief on the oral hearing ground, effect of certiorari on the CPO, and costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Bus Gates in the Scheme would deprive the Plaintiffs' Filling Station of passing trade and render it commercially unviable; that effect was characterised in the EIAR as "Negative, Very Significant and Long-Term".
• That restriction or interference with the public right of way on The Road constituted an "acquisition of land" within s.213(2)(a) PDA 2000 and therefore had to be identified in the CPO (and attract compensation avenues).
• The Scheme and/or CPO represented an unjust attack on constitutional property rights and certain statutory provisions were unconstitutional or contrary to ECHR Article 1 of Protocol 1; sought declaratory and injunctive relief and certiorari quashing the Impugned Decisions on multiple grounds.
• Sought a certificate to appeal centered on the statutory-construction issue in s.213(2)(a) and related questions (three proposed questions for certification).

Respondents' Arguments (Company A, Company B, The State)

• The restriction or interference with a public right of way is not an "acquisition of land" within s.213(2)(a); s.213 must be read consistently with other provisions (including express extinguishment powers) and practical workability.
• The Plaintiffs' trial case had been confined to persons "specially damaged"; the proposed certification question sought to expand that case impermissibly to a general rule requiring CPOs for all interferences with public rights of way.
• The Scheme is of high public importance and delay caused by appeal would be against the public interest; novelty of the point does not equate to uncertainty warranting certification.
• Even if the statutory interpretation point were resolved for the Plaintiffs, it would not be dispositive of the proceedings because the Judgment also rested on alternative and discretionary bases.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeded as follows:

• The core factual finding (unchallenged) was that the Bus Gates would deprive the Plaintiffs' Filling Station of almost all passing trade and likely render it commercially unviable.
• On EIA and decision-making: the EIAR characterised the Filling Station's closure as "Negative, Very Significant and Long-Term"; the Inspector's contrary view (that the Filling Station could continue to operate) was, in the court's view, a material error of fact; the Commission accepted the Inspector's characterisation, rendering its EIA decision irrational and unfair to the Plaintiffs. For that reason the S.51 Approval was quashed on Ground 6.
• Viewed alternatively as planning analysis, the S.51 Approval likewise failed for the same reasons and was quashed.
• The court considered remedy: a proportionate certiorari and remittal limited to the Bus Gates' effect on the Filling Station was appropriate rather than a full reopening of the entire Scheme; Crofton was relied upon to justify a narrow remedial remit.
• Ground 7 (reasons for refusal of an oral hearing) succeeded on the adequacy of reasons but, having found no substantive requirement for an oral hearing in the circumstances and in light of Waterville Fisheries, the court rejected certiorari relief on that ground while reserving declaratory relief.
• Grounds alleging unjust attack on constitutional property rights (including Grounds 5 and 8 and the challenge to the statutory defence of authority) were rejected: the court found no unjust attack on constitutional rights and held the Plaintiffs may seek compensation, if any, under common law/statute; recourse to the Constitution would not avail.
• On s.213(2)(a) PDA 2000 (Ground 3): the court concluded that the phrase "any easement, way-leave, water-right or other right over or in respect of any land" does not encompass a public right of way; the concept of "acquisition" of a public right of way is incongruous; statutory amendments allowing extinguishment of public rights of way post-acquisition indicate that s.213 was not intended to treat restriction/interference with public rights of way as an "acquisition of land". Consequently, restriction by Bus Gates was not an "acquisition of land" requiring listing in the CPO.
• On certification for appeal under s.50A(7): the court applied the statutory test (point of law of exceptional public importance; appeal desirable in the public interest) and related caselaw. It found the Plaintiffs' proposed Question 1 expanded the trial case (removing the "special damage" limitation) and would not be dispositive of the proceedings because the Judgment rested on other grounds and discretionary considerations. The public importance of the Scheme and the prejudice of delay, novelty without relevant legal uncertainty, and limits on the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction under s.50A(11) all weighed against certification. The application for a certificate was refused.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court quashed the S.51 Approval insofar as it authorised the two Bus Gates on The Road and remitted that limited question to Company A for reconsideration; the court dismissed the Plaintiffs' challenge to the CPO; the court declared inadequate reasons were given for refusal of an oral hearing; and the court refused to certify any question for appeal under s.50A(7) PDA 2000.

Implications:

• The limited quashing means the Scheme must be reconsidered by Company A as to the Bus Gates' impact on the Plaintiffs' Filling Station; the remainder of the Scheme and the confirmed CPO remain operative.
• The court granted a time extension under s.217(6A) PDA 2000 in specified terms and ordered Company A to pay 70% of the Plaintiffs' costs; liberty to apply was preserved.
• No certificate to appeal was granted; the court refused to refer the statutory-interpretation question to the Court of Appeal as not sufficiently dispositive and not satisfying the statutory test. The court did not purport to lay down an expansive new precedent beyond its reasons in the judgment.