Background
Fingal County Council made a compulsory purchase order over Angela Heavey’s lands at 17 and 17A North Street, Swords, beside Swords Castle. The order was made to support the protection and enhancement of the castle and its setting, and was confirmed by An Bord Pleanála on 28 May 2024.
Ms Heavey had unsuccessfully challenged the CPO confirmation by judicial review. Leave was refused by the High Court, and the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. The Council then commenced plenary proceedings seeking possession of the lands and injunctions requiring Ms Heavey to deliver possession and restraining trespass.
Ms Heavey applied to move the possession proceedings from the Planning and Environment List to the Chancery List, stay the Council’s interlocutory-injunction application, and obtain directions for plenary-style procedural steps. She alleged fraud, bad faith, trespass, improper motive and abuse of power.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Conlon refused the transfer and stay applications. The possession proceedings arose directly from the confirmed CPO and properly remained in the Planning and Environment List. That list is part of the High Court and has the same common-law, equitable and procedural powers as the Chancery List, including powers relating to discovery, particulars, interrogatories and oral evidence where properly required.
The Court held that challenges to the validity, propriety or motives underlying the CPO process were impermissible collateral challenges. Under section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, those matters could be challenged only by judicial review within the statutory framework; Ms Heavey had already pursued that route and the judicial-review proceedings had been finally determined.
The Court also found that the serious allegations advanced lacked an adequate evidential basis, being frequently hearsay, unspecified, general or conclusory. It refused consolidation with the concluded judicial-review proceedings, adjourned case-management relief to the injunction hearing, and directed that the earlier judicial-review case not be listed again in the High Court.
Key Takeaways
- A confirmed CPO cannot be attacked indirectly in later possession proceedings.
- The Planning and Environment List has the High Court’s equitable and procedural powers; transfer to Chancery does not itself provide additional remedies.
- Arguments against interlocutory relief may be made at the injunction hearing, rather than through a preliminary stay application.
Why It Matters
The ruling reinforces the finality of statutory planning and CPO challenge procedures. A landowner who has litigated, or could have litigated, the validity of a CPO through judicial review cannot reopen that dispute by characterising it as a defence to later enforcement or possession proceedings.
It also confirms that list allocation within the High Court does not generally limit the Court’s substantive equitable jurisdiction or available procedural tools.