Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Kenny -v- An Bord Pleanála [2008] IESC 17 (10 April 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2008/S17.html
Cite as: [2008] IESC 17
|
|
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Kenny -v- An Bord Pleanála [2008] IESC 17 (10 April 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2008/S17.html Cite as: [2008] IESC 17 |
||
[New search] [Help]
|
Judgment Title: Kenny -v- An Bord Pleanála Composition of Court: Fennelly J., Macken J., Peart J. Judgment by: Fennelly J. Status of Judgment: Approved
| ||||||||||||||
THE SUPREME COURT 192/04 BETWEEN JAMES KENNY PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AND
AN BORD PLEANÁLA DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT Judgment delivered the 10th day of April 2008 by Fennelly J. 1. At the hearing of this appeal, the parties agreed that the appeal must necessarily fail, in the event that the appeal of the Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the University of Dublin, that is Trinity College, in the case in which the Court has given judgment this morning succeeds. I will call that the Trinity case. That event has, in fact occurred. 2. This appeal is taken against two related orders of the High Court (O’Donovan J) dated 29th March, 2004. Firstly, the High Court made an order striking out the appellant’s action against the respondent as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Secondly, it made an order refusing the appellant’s application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from seeking to enforce an order for costs made in its favour in the Trinity case. Those costs were awarded by the High Court (McKechnie J). They relate to an application by the appellant for leave to apply for judicial review of a planning permission granted to Trinity in respect of the redevelopment of Trinity Hall. 3. The grounds for the appellant’s challenge to that planning permission have been treated extensively in the judgment which I have delivered in the Trinity case. It suffices to say that the appellant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of a grant of planning permission by a decision of the respondent was refused. This Court has dismissed the action (the Trinity case) in which the appellant sought to reopen the decision of McKechnie J. There is no longer any ground for contesting the planning permission. 4. It follows that the High Court order dismissing the appellant’s action against the respondent in the present action must stand. There is no basis in law for restraining the respondent from pursuing the costs awarded to it in the Trinity case. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed and the orders of the High Court affirmed.
| ||||||||||||||