Background
Coumnagappul Wind Farm Limited sought permission to construct ten wind turbines and associated infrastructure in County Waterford. An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission by a decision made on 11 April 2025. Under section 50(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the eight-week period for seeking leave to apply for judicial review expired on 5 June 2025.
The company’s solicitor misread a handwritten date on the decision as 27 April 2025 and advised that the deadline fell later in June. The error was discovered on 11 June while the statement of grounds was being drafted, and the extension application followed on 13 June, eight days after the statutory deadline. Humphreys J had initially extended time subject to the Commission’s right to object, which it exercised.
The company had received a judicial-review notice stating the applicable eight-week period. Although the solicitor maintained that his firm had not received that notice, the High Court found that the specialist firm already knew the statutory time limit. The Court also noted that another page of the decision clearly stated 11 April 2025, the Commission’s website carried that date, and the supposed 27 April date was inconsistent with the solicitors having received the papers on 17 April.
The Court’s Holding
Nolan J refused the application under section 50(8). The company had not established either a good and sufficient reason for missing the deadline or that the circumstances causing the failure were outside its control. As a general rule, a litigant is bound by the acts and omissions of its legal advisers, and the solicitor’s mistaken calculation was legally attributable to the company.
The Court distinguished authority showing that incorrect legal advice can sometimes support an extension, particularly where an unrepresented litigant was clearly misled. Here, the company was represented by a leading specialist firm, the incorrect date conflicted with known facts, and the affidavits did not satisfactorily explain why the error went undetected despite the available documents and time-management safeguards that might be expected.
The eight-day delay was not extensive, the company acted promptly after discovering the error, and the Commission identified no specific prejudice beyond disruption to the finality of its decision. Those considerations did not outweigh the deficient explanation or the statutory interest in certainty and finality in planning decisions.
Key Takeaways
- A solicitor’s error in calculating a planning judicial-review deadline is generally attributable to the client and does not, without more, justify extending time.
- Section 50(8) requires both a good and sufficient reason and circumstances outside the applicant’s control; failing either requirement defeats the application.
- A short delay and prompt action after discovering an error may favor an applicant, but they do not cure an inadequately explained and avoidable failure to meet the statutory deadline.
Why It Matters
The judgment underscores the strict approach to time limits for Irish planning judicial review. Applicants and their advisers must verify the decision date against all available materials and cannot ordinarily characterize mistakes within their own legal team as external circumstances.
Even where a proposed development concerns renewable energy and the intended challenge raises arguable issues, those considerations do not displace the statutory requirements or the public interest in the certainty and finality of planning decisions.