Supreme Court: Extension of time upheld for judicial review involving allegations of systemic bias on part of An Bord Pleanála

By Gillian O'Hanlon BL, case reporter

Delivering judgment for the Supreme Court, Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe expressed that, in his opinion, “it was appropriate and reasonable for the court below to in effect hold that the public interest in certainty was, in this very exceptional case, outweighed by the very serious allegations of systemic failure on the part of the board”.

Background

On 17 June 2021, the appellant granted permission to Eircom Ltd to erect a telecommunications mast near the respondents’ home in Kilkenny.

The respondents had eight weeks to challenge the appellant’s decision pursuant to s.50(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. 

Initially, the respondents decided against challenging the decision in light of inter alia the costs risk to them. In February 2022, the respondents discovered that in each of the 28 mast appeals that had taken place since September 2022, the appellant had overturned a refusal of permission by the planning authority.

The respondents also became aware of newspaper articles which suggested concerns around the impartiality of Paul Hyde, the chairperson of the appellant and one of the two members of the appellant who had granted the permission in question.

The respondents engaged with media organisations in relation to Mr Hyde in May 2022 and in July 2022, requested that the Eircom files would be included in an investigation being conducted by the appellant.

The eight-week period having expired on 11 August 2021, the respondents issued judicial review proceedings on 28 November 2022.

The respondents alleged that the appellant was biased in the discharge of its functions in circumstances where there was partiality in the allocation of files resulting in the disproportionate allocation of files to Mr Hyde, where the appellant panels led by him departed from planning authorities’ decisions in 79 per cent of cases and where the decisions departed from development plan policy and/or misinterpreted ministerial guidelines without offering any clear reasons for doing so.

The High Court

In the High Court, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys granted leave to judicially review the decision on an ex parte basis on the basis that time ought to be extended. The appellant then issued a motion seeking to set aside that order on grounds of delay and/or that the application for leave was not made in time having regard to s.50(6).

Mr Justice Humphreys applied the test in s.50(6), noting that time to bring a leave application could be extended if there is good and sufficient reason for doing so, and where the failure to bring the application in time was due to reasons “outside the control” of the respondents.

The court was satisfied that by mid-June 2022 at latest, the respondents would have had sufficient information to bring proceedings and accordingly, they were out of time to seek leave. 

As to whether a good and sufficient reason to extend time existed, the court found that it was required to consider holistically all the circumstances, finding inter alia that the complaints of systemic failure on part of the respondents did not outweigh the substantial public interest in commercial certainty for the developer who was entitled to rely on the appellant’s decision unless there was a clear case for a belated challenge.

The Court of Appeal

On appeal, the Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion on the question of “good and sufficient reason”, citing jurisprudence including Arthropharm (Europe) Limited v. The Health Products Regulatory Authority [2022] IECA 109 as authority for the proposition that if a case is demonstrably strong, that can support an extension of time and did support an extension in the case before it.

Mr Justice Brian O’Moore, allowing the respondents’ appeal, was also satisfied that while there was undoubtedly a public interest in grants of planning permission being considered conclusive within the eight-week statutory period, there was also a public interest in having a planning regime which complies with basic concepts of integrity and that serious question had been raised by the allocation of mast appeals to Mr Hyde.

The appellant was subsequently granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court

Having considered the submissions of the parties, Mr Justice Woulfe was satisfied that the net issue arising in the appeal was the test for extending time to challenge a planning decision as set out in s.50(6), with the focus being on the “good and sufficient reason” limb.

The judge summarised the relevant principles, noting the strict eight-week time limit for planning judicial reviews, the broader discretion afforded to the court by the language of s.50, and the necessity to give effect to each of the words “good” and “sufficient” in the section, opining that a possible case where a reason may be considered “good” but not “sufficient” would be one where the reason may appear prima facie to be good in principle or taken on its own, but where overall that reason is insufficient having regard to other countervailing factors.

The court also had regard to authorities setting out the factors to be taken into account in the consideration of whether a good and sufficient reason to extend time exists, highlighting that while it may be important for an applicant to seek to explain an entire period of delay, a failure to do so was not per se fatal to securing an extension.

The court also highlighted Arthropharm, in which the court warned against embarking upon a detailed assessment of the merits of a case having regard to the danger that an application for an extension of time would be converted into a trial of the merits.

Mr Justice Woulfe was satisfied that the Court of Appeal was justified in granting an extension of time in circumstances where Mr Justice O’Moore had taken into account relevant factors such as the very short time limit for a judicial review challenge, any demonstrated prejudice to Eircom, the reason for the delay and the level of detail provided by the respondents in that regard, blameworthy conduct, the merits of the case and the public interest.

Noting that the essential difference between the judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal turned on the weight each court assigned to the relevant factors, the Supreme Court was further satisfied that the Court of Appeal was correct in placing decisive weight on the public interest aspect of the proceedings having regard to the exceptional nature of the allegations being made against the appellant and having regard to the countervailing factors.

In that regard, the court found that the allegations made went far beyond the facts of one individual planning decision and involved “systemic issues about the operation of the appellant over a number of years and the integrity of the planning regime in this jurisdiction”. Mr Justice Woulfe considered this to be a prima facie good reason to extend time.

The judge then turned to the first of the countervailing factors, being the public interest in certainty and finality of decisions made by planning authorities and the appellant. 

Accepting that these were very important considerations, the court pointed out that “the Oireachtas itself has decided that these considerations are not absolute factors, which must in every case trump every other factor, by making provision for an extension of time where there is ‘good and sufficient reason’” and concluded that in this exceptional case, it was appropriate and reasonable to find that this factor was outweighed by the serious allegations of systemic failure on part of the appellant.

Mr Justice Woulfe considered the second countervailing factor concerning prejudice to the third party beneficiary of the permission granted, finding that while other matters were usually unlikely to outweigh that major consideration, the present case was unusual and exceptional in that the extent of the prejudice to Eircom was relatively minor, Eircom not having sought to build in accordance with the permission and not having participated in the proceedings.

Finally, the court did not accept that the Court of Appeal was significantly influenced by its view on the merits of the case, notwithstanding that Mr Justice O’Moore’s comments arguably could be seen as straying beyond the Arthropharm approach and overstating the position as to the consideration of the merits of the case.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Thomson & Anor  v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESC 31

Johnson Hana acquired by US firm Eudia

Johnson Hana was founded in 2017 by former barrister Dan Fox and now counts Citibank, Stripe, Airbnb, X and OpenAI among its clients.

The terms of the deal were not disclosed but The Currency reported that the transaction was worth $50 million.

Mr Fox, co-founder and CEO of Johnson Hana, said the acquisition would create “the world’s first generative AI-powered legal platform — a true end-to-end solution for corporate law departments”.

Omar Haroun, co-founder and CEO at Eudia, added: “Johnson Hana represents something extraordinarily rare — elite legal talent with proven managed services expertise at a global scale.

“By fusing their elite talent base and managed services expertise with Eudia’s AI platform, we’re building an entirely new category of legal delivery where human expertise and artificial intelligence operate as a unified system.”

Taylor Wessing advised Eudia on the transaction, while Matheson advised Johnson Hana.

The Taylor Wessing team was led by partner Adam Griffiths and Paddy Quinlan, alongside corporate associate Jack Ryan.

They were assisted by IP, regulatory and digital lawyers Jo Joyce and Karl Cullinane, tax lawyers Trish McCarvill and Madalina Budau, banking and finance lawyers Libby Garvey and Laura Borhan, and real estate lawyers Órlaith Molloy and Bríd Kenny.

Commenting on the deal, Mr Griffiths said: “We are delighted to have advised Eudia on this significant transaction.

“We pride ourselves on managing and executing material cross-border transactions, and it was a pleasure to deliver a successful outcome for Eudia.”

The Matheson team was led by Brian McCloskey, Dan McAleese, Kevin Lavin, Nicola McAleese and Stephanie Ryan.

Mr McCloskey said: “We were delighted to work with the Johnson Hana team again and to support them on this transaction.

“We congratulate the team on reaching this significant milestone and look forward to seeing the continued growth of the business under the ownership of Eudia”. 

Courts Service to become ‘genuinely bilingual’ organisation

The organisation’s first-ever Irish language strategy, published today, contains 44 actions across six priorities and provides a roadmap for the development of the Irish language across the next three years.

Dónal Ó Gallachóir, the Courts Service’s Irish language strategy manager, said: “The goal is that the public will experience an active bilingual offering without delay or difficulty.

“We also aim that staff use of the first national language is actively welcomed and encouraged.”

The Courts Service said its ambition is to develop a centralised Irish language office, improve quality and availability of an Irish language service and bring about parity between English and Irish in all service provision.

The service will work to actively recruit those with Irish language skills, alongside the development of a comprehensive tailored Irish language training programme.

It will also investigate methods of providing a guarantee of availability of Irish language court interpreters for all hearings where required.

Additional support will also be provided and continuous workforce analysis and planning conducted to ensure Gaeltacht venues can always operate fully in Irish.

Government expected to legislate on ‘honest belief’ defence in rape cases

The Law Reform Commission recommended a change to the existing law, set out in section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, in a report published in 2018.

The Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General are now working to progress the recommendation, according to The Irish Times.

Dublin Rape Crisis Centre (DRCC) has welcomed the news as a “significant and necessary reform that aligns Irish law with international standards and reflects a victim-centred focus”.

“We raised the status of the legislation at a meeting with minister for justice Jim O’Callaghan TD in early June 2025 and are pleased to see that he has acted swiftly and is at an advanced stage of discussions with the Attorney General,” the charity said.

It added: “This reform will ensure that any belief in consent must be objectively reasonable, rather than based on subjective beliefs. It is a crucial step in strengthening protections for survivors and ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

“The passage of this legislation cannot come soon enough and we remain committed to working with all stakeholders to create a justice system that truly supports and protects survivors of sexual violence.”

North and south teams share podium at 2025 International Negotiation Competition

The INC is the oldest and most renowned competition focusing on international legal negotiation for law students from all over the world.

This year’s competition was hosted by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) in London from 7-11 July.

The Northern Ireland team of Rebekah Spence and Reece Simpson, both trainees at Carson McDowell, took first place.

The Irish team — Meadhbh Jones of A&L Goodbody and Noor Choudhry of Maples — came in third, sharing the podium with their northern counterparts.

Second place was won by the US team of Caroline Villarreal and Kendall Michaelis from St Mary’s University School of Law in Texas.

Northern Ireland equality body facing lawsuit over trans toilet policy

The Good Law Project said it was taking the legal challenge after the Commission advised an employer that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) was required to use the men’s toilet at work.

The advice was given verbally two days before the landmark UK Supreme Court judgment which has prompted the Commission to ask the Northern Ireland courts to clarify the definition of “sex” in equality law.

After receiving correspondence from the Good Law Project and the woman, the Commission last week wrote to the employer to withdraw the advice.

However, the Good Law Project says it will continue with its lawsuit as the Commission is “still breaking the law”.

The lawsuit also contends that the paper published by the Commission in June, underpinning its decision to go to the courts for clarity on its interpretation of equality law when it comes to trans people, had failed to recognise a “fundamental protection for trans people”.

AL Goodbody is acting for the claimants — the unnamed trans woman and the Good Law Project — and has instructed Jason Coppel KC and Laura Curran BL.

Letter: Disabled legal professionals still aren’t seen as a possibility

The latest LSRA report has been published on pathways into the legal profession. Despite many welcome figures about increased diversity within legal education and early practice, there is still a gross lack of consideration for disabled people as legal practitioners.

The report itself states that recommendations have been made to increase disability awareness among students — but that seems to suggest that there is no expectation for students to see disabled people among their cohort.

The National Disability Authority, in its submission, states that “the Law Society and King’s Inns should consider what measures are needed to increase the number of students with disabilities in their courses”, while IHREC recommends “comprehensive training for solicitors and barristers on disability awareness and realisation of UNCRPD rights”.

The reference to the UNCRPD is welcomed, but there is little to no awareness of the UNCRPD outside of disability-specific contexts.

There are references to diversity scattered throughout the report, but by diversity it appears to suggest those from lower socio-economic backgrounds and not other diversity metrics such as disability.

If our only metric for diversity is less well off people entering our profession, how can we hope to get an overall picture of what the legal industry really looks like? 

According to the ESRI and IHREC, disabled households spend the majority of their disposable income on disability-related expenses. Despite this, there are no disability-specific scholarships within either King’s Inns or the Law Society that could increase uptake in legal training for disabled people.

When the majority of disabled households are living below the poverty line, there’s no amount of ‘pulling yourself up by the bootstraps’ that can help you afford the astronomical fees attached to the legal profession.

There is also structural and attitudinal change that needs to come from the profession as a whole across solicitors and barristers. Language needs to shift from a passive to an active voice when discussing pathways for disabled practitioners into the legal field. There needs to be collaboration with disabled legal practitioners to build a better legal profession.

We have to stop seeing disabled people as a consequence of society and start planning for them to be active and engaged members of our legal profession. Otherwise, it will simply be disabled people fighting for themselves, getting burnt out and then having to leave an industry that didn’t support them adequately despite them beating the odds of being admitted to the bar or the roll of solicitors.

Alannah Uí Geargáin

Not every dispute is mediation-ready – would you know?

The latter problem has been raised in particular by critics of Ireland’s obligation on solicitors to advise in relation to mediation before issuing legal proceedings, a point at which many disputants such as those, for example, in personal injury case, don’t even have enough information (medical reports etc.) to mediate effectively. Those situations are easy for a prospective mediator to spot though.

Less straightforward are those situations where the parties, the dispute, or the dynamic make the matter unsuitable for mediation. How does a mediator screen out these situations, particularly against a background of increasingly compulsory mediation, and the desire for mediation work?

Suitability screening plays a particularly significant role in the mediation of interpersonal disputes, especially in relationship breakdown; situations in which the mere instigation of mediation can, as evidenced by research, trigger an increase in interpersonal violence, mainly against women. 

Even less highly charged situations may not be suitable, and a range of tools and approaches are available to mediators to separate chaff from the grain. 

Buyer beware

It might be obvious, but ensure the parties know what they are signing up for, that is, the limitations of the mediation process. If they are looking for public admissions of responsibility for wrongdoing, or attributions of blame, mediation is not the right process. It is usually a better move to decline an appointment than proceed and end up with frustrated or angry parties who were seeking vindication or other external validation of their positions. 

Assess the external circumstances

There’s a court date looming?
 
The inheritance is being litigated away?

Bankruptcy is around the corner? 

Good. Usually…  A little external motivation to negotiate and think creatively to avoid the worst case scenario is usually a good thing. It focuses the mind and can provide an incentive to move from positions to interests, as long as the pressure is not so great as to compromise self-determination and allow parties to decide on their future freely. Which brings us to…

It takes two (or more) 

The suitability of a matter for mediation also depends on the dynamic between the parties. One side has unlimited funds to litigate but the other is on their last pound or euro? That would lead to some concerns about equal ability to participate and decide freely. The tricky thing is that these dynamics are not always immediately visible, and definitely not from the legal or position papers sent by legal representatives. Private, individual intake calls with all parties are a must, even in commercial matters. Use the information, and that gained from assessing external circumstances, to map the dynamics of the conflict.

When in doubt, use a checklist

If you’re ever in doubt about whether a case is suitable for mediation, don’t rely on instinct alone. Sometimes, the simplest tool like a structured checklist can bring the clarity you need.

Ask yourself:

• Do the parties have a history of cooperation?
• Is hostility low to moderate?
• Is there a genuine desire to settle?
• Are there external pressures (cost, time, uncertainty) pushing toward resolution?
• Is there an ongoing relationship to preserve?

Even a handful of positive indicators can suggest mediation is worth pursuing. But as with any complex process, suitability is rarely black and white - it’s about balancing instinct with structure, ethics with practicality.

That’s why assessing suitability is one of the core skills we teach on our Accredited Mediation Summer School this July. 

You’ll leave with the tools to make confident decisions, the insight to navigate tricky dynamics, and the credibility that comes from world-class training.

Only two places remain, secure yours here: Register for Mediation Summer School.

And finally… in the bag

The 20-year-old man, who has not been named, is believed to have escaped from the Corbas prison near Lyon by hiding in a laundry bag belonging to a cellmate who had just finished his sentence.

He was found to be missing on Saturday morning and was finally arrested early this morning, CNN reports.

French prisons boss Sébastien Cauwel said: “This is an extremely rare event that we have never seen in this administration and which clearly shows a whole series of serious failures.”

The man is now facing additional charges of escape as part of an organised gang and participation in a criminal conspiracy.

His accomplice has yet to be arrested.