I, David Barniville, President of the High Court, hereby make the following Practice Direction pursuant to section 11(12) and (13) of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, Order 103 rules 5, 6, 17(2), 30(1), 31, 32(3), 34(3) of, and Appendix NN of Schedule 2 to, the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, and the general authority of the President of the High Court.  

1 – INTRODUCTORY MATTERS

 Commencement, revocation and application

1. Practice Direction HC126 is revoked with effect from Monday 13 April 2026 which will be the commencement day of this Practice Direction.  This Practice Direction applies to all proceedings in the Court whether instituted before or after its commencement.

Purpose of Practice Direction

2. This Practice Direction is adopted having regard to the requirements of EU environmental law including in particular Directive (EU) 2023/2413 (RED III).  The purpose of the Practice Direction is to enable the Planning & Environment Court, in the exercise of an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at a proportionate cost in terms of time and expense, to endeavour to balance the right of access to justice enjoyed by all parties with the right of all parties to have cases determined expeditiously within available resources.

2 - THE COURT

Purpose and goals of the Court

3. The Court is organised on the basis that the substantive and procedural rights enjoyed by parties carry with them a corresponding obligation to conduct proceedings as efficiently and reasonably as possible, and to assist the Court in that regard to the maximum extent possible, and in the case of represented parties, bearing in mind the principle that the primary duty of legal practitioners is to the Court.  Such obligations include, but are not limited to, avoiding imposing unnecessary costs on other parties, avoiding an unnecessary proliferation of points or material, refraining from making points (by way of application or opposition) that lack a reasonable prospect of success, and conducting the litigation within such timescales as to directions, and time-limits as to hearings, and such other requirements, as may be directed by the Court.  In that regard, the purpose and goals of the Court, further to O. 103 r. 5 RSC, include the following:

a) giving effective practical expression to the right of wide access to justice under the Constitution, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, other EU law, the ECHR, the Aarhus Convention and related instruments;

(b) giving effective practical expression to the right to have cases heard and determined expeditiously under the Constitution, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, other EU law, the ECHR, the Aarhus Convention and related instruments, and particularly where EU or domestic law so provides, the right to have such cases determined by the most expeditious procedure available, as inherent in the concept of wide access to justice;

(c) reducing costs, through measures such as active case management, word limits on submissions, time-limits for hearings, early hearing dates and related directions, promoting and supporting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and endeavouring to reduce conflict between parties where possible;

(d) implementing domestic and EU procedural and substantive environmental law in an effective and appropriate manner in the context of proceedings before the Court;

(e) taking any appropriate measures to address disruptive conduct as identified by the President’s Notice of 18 December 2025 or any other abuse of process (including by way of SLAPP applications);

(f) promoting and improving certainty as to relevant procedural and substantive law, disseminating information in that regard as appropriate, and conducting proceedings in a user-friendly and accessible manner to the extent appropriate;

(g) promoting a collaborative approach with List participants and stakeholders and maintaining ongoing consultation with representative bodies, users and institutional and individual stakeholders, and dynamically keeping procedures under continual review and striving for continual improvement in consultation with stakeholders; and

(h)promoting paperless access to justice and maximising efficiency within available resources where possible.

4. In assisting the Court with the carrying out the foregoing, parties and their legal representatives should ensure that they and any members of staff/ other servants or agents should:

(a) attempt to ensure that the matters of law and fact arising in the proceedings which are at issue between the parties should, at as early a stage and to the extent as is practicable, be identified, defined and narrowed (where possible);

(b) attempt to ensure that their conduct of proceedings is carried out in a manner which is just, expeditious and likely to minimise the costs of those proceedings;

(c) familiarise themselves with, and comply with, any requirements set out or referred to in or under this Practice Direction;

(d) in the case of practitioners, satisfy themselves that they are likely to have capacity to comply with time-lines prior to accepting instructions to act in cases where a schedule of directions leading to a hearing date has been or is likely to be directed, bearing in mind in particular the nature of the case and the prospect of an expedited hearing in that regard;

(e) take and maintain a reasonable and business-like approach to the conduct of proceedings within the Planning & Environment List, including by conducting correspondence and communications inter partes in as business-like, co-operative and non-contentious a manner as circumstances permit;

(f) make sustained and realistic efforts to reach agreement on as many issues, particularly procedural issues, as possible;

(g) avoid unnecessary interlocutory disputes, particularly where disagreement can reasonably be saved for a single substantive hearing;

(h) comply with such time-limits as are directed, including for oral submissions and, for that purpose, highlight their main submissions in a concise manner;

(i) co-operate with the Court and each other in the efficient dispatch of business and the efficient management of hearings;

(j) provide documents (including, as applicable, pleadings or proposed agreed directions and orders) to the Court and List Registrar in a timely way;

(k) demonstrate reasonable willingness to explore ADR options if appropriate and/or to explore proposals from other parties or the Court as to how areas of dispute might be reduced or narrowed;

(l) keep themselves informed of notices and developments in the Court by furnishing their email to the List Registrar for the purposes of being added to any circulation list maintained by the Court under any relevant Practice Direction;

(m) familiarise themselves with the Court’s file sharing platform and upload and organise papers on that platform in a structured manner in accordance with any relevant Practice Direction;

(n) without prejudice to any more general Practice Direction that may be issued in that regard, ensure that insofar as generative artificial intelligence is used to prepare/summarise any document, the output is subject to such review as is appropriate to the content and purpose of the output to ensure that it meets appropriate quality standards; and

(o) communicate with the List Registrar and the Court in a non-contentious manner and by email or otherwise generally only in a way that copies all other relevant parties and not with (unless requested) any Judicial Assistant.

5. In keeping with the collaborative approach with the Court and each other, where List participants fail to object forthwith to matters in a timely way they shall be deemed to have waived any such objections.  In particular, where the potential objection relates to something the Court is doing or proposing or has done, this must be articulated forthwith and not stored up for use at some future time.  List participants are reminded of their obligation that care should be taken to establish that there is a sufficient factual and legal basis to make any claim of objective or subjective bias or other misconduct against any person, including a decision-taker, a legal representative or the Court (see Shatter v. Guerin [2019] IESC 9, [2021] 2 I.R. 415 at 30 per O’Donnell J. (Dunne, Charleton and O’Malley JJ. concurring).

Scope of the List

As to scope of the List see O. 103 r. 1(2)-(4) RSC.

6. For the avoidance of doubt, the scope of the List includes the following, irrespective of whether the original proceedings were initiated in or admitted to the Planning & Environment Court or not:

(a) judicial reviews of planning and environment-type decisions;

(b) planning and environment-type injunctions or other proceedings initiated in the High Court;

(c) appeals from/ judicial reviews of the Commissioner for Environmental Information;

(d) Circuit Court planning and environment-type proceedings that have been transferred to the High Court;

(e) appeals from the Circuit Court to the High Court sitting in Dublin in planning and environment-type proceedings (including appeals as to the costs of such proceedings) (i.e., under s. 37 of the Courts of Justice Act 1936, excluding provincial appeals in cases heard on oral evidence that are brought to the High Court on Circuit);

(f) judicial reviews of planning and environment-type proceedings in the District or Circuit Courts including as to costs;

(g) appeals to the High Court under s. 161 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 in respect of the costs of Planning & Environment proceedings; and

(h) judicial review of costs adjudication decisions in planning and environment-type proceedings.

7. Parties are reminded that all pleadings in Planning & Environment proceedings (including a notice of appeal from the Circuit Court that is returnable to the List) should be headed “Planning & Environment”.  If contrary to the foregoing proceedings are not so headed and are administratively listed in some other list, it is the responsibility of all parties to contact the List Registrar to have the matter administratively transferred.

8. Where planning and environment-type Circuit Court proceedings have been transferred to the High Court as referred to in O. 61A RSC or by order of the High Court on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court in relation to such transfer, the proceedings shall by default be managed in tandem with any other proceedings in the High Court related to the subject-matter of the dispute.

General powers of the Court

9. The Judge in charge of the List may, at any time and from time to time, of his or her own motion or on application of a party, give such directions and make such orders for the conduct of proceedings generally in the Planning & Environment List or any category of such proceedings, as appears convenient for as efficient and timely a processing as is consistent with justice of such proceedings, in particular pursuant to the Order and this Practice Direction, including orders fixing time-limits as to delivery of pleadings and other documents and orders under O. 103 r. 32(2) RSC or otherwise.

10. A Judge managing particular proceedings may, at any time and from time to time, of his or her own motion or on application of a party, give such directions and make such orders for the conduct of those proceedings as appears convenient for as efficient and timely a processing as is consistent with justice of such proceedings, in particular pursuant to the Order and this Practice Direction, including orders fixing time-limits as to delivery of pleadings and other documents and orders under O. 103 r. 32(2) RSC or otherwise.

11. Disposition of a matter on the papers does not derogate from the principle of justice in public.  In any case where an order is made, this will be recorded in writing and public access to details of the order will be facilitated by information on the High Court Search -platform and/or by contacting the List Registrar as appropriate.  The Court may deal with or determine a matter on the papers in cases such as the following:

(a) the matter relates to the organisation of the business of the Court only and does not constitute the administration of justice as such, for example by fixing or amending a return date to enable the issue of a notice of motion, or a date for the listing of a matter, or by circulating questions or issues for the consideration of the parties, as opposed to the making of any decision;

(b) the matter is non-contentious, for example a consent adjournment, or is without prejudice to other parties, such as by fixing or extending the time for the making of an application or the taking of another step without prejudice to any objection in due course;

(c) the order concerns the correction of an error in an order including under the slip rule;

(d) the parties request or consent to a decision on the papers (see O. 103 r. 32(4)(c)(vi) RSC);

(e) the matter is of a procedural nature that is the subject of a direction from the President of the High Court as being one that is suitable for disposition on the papers; or

(f) the matter is in the nature of an urgent or confidential application which may be dealt with otherwise than in public pursuant to section 45(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 or other statutory provision.

12. Unless a party thereby affected objects prior to the making of the order concerned, a Judge who is not dealing judicially with particular proceedings in the Planning & Environment List may make any consent order or give any administrative directions in relation to such proceedings, including by fixing a date.

Records under the control of the Court

13. All material generated or put before the Court in the context of proceedings (including without limitation the Digital Audio Recording (DAR), pleadings, submissions, affidavits and exhibits, and correspondence inter partes or to the Court) is under the control of the Court and may, in whole or in part, be incorporated in judgments or otherwise communicated, published or made available subject to the in camera rule where it applies.  Where material is before the Court that a party considers should be redacted prior to public access or circulation any party may propose such redaction as it considers appropriate but should do so well in advance of any judgment.  The Court will decide on whether any redaction is required.  The disposition by the Court of materials under its control may not be circumvented by availing of other procedures, and attempts to do so may be addressed by appropriate order of the Court.  Any application for disclosure of materials under the control of the Court but not made available by it should be made to the Court itself by formal notice of motion grounded on affidavit.  If any party wishes to have a stenographer, this Practice Direction constitutes a general deemed permission from the Court for this to be done provided that the Court is expressly notified in advance separately and individually in relation to each hearing concerned and subject to any direction of the Court otherwise.  Individual orders/directions in each case are not required.  However, it is a term of the general deemed permission that the stenographer’s note be furnished to the Court and that the Court may direct amendments.  Any party paying for such note is not required to share the note with other parties unless such other parties pay a proportionate contribution of the cost (i.e., total cost divided by the number of paying parties), subject to the above-mentioned right of the Court independently to communicate, publish or make available materials under its control in whole or in part in a judgment or otherwise.

Guidance notes and forms

14. The Judge in charge of the List may provide guidance (“guidance notes”) on the practical implementation of this Practice Direction, which are subject to Rules of Court and Practice Directions and which will be published on courts.ie.  Guidance notes may for example contain provisions specifying forms which parties should use including the form of the checklist to be completed for any given step (such as for applying for a date), specifying details of procedures for uploading of materials or so that matters can be listed for mention or hearing, providing information on sitting times or default times, informing parties of procedures regarding papers for Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) references, or setting out time-lines for submission of papers or information to the List Registrar for listings, and subject to the directions of the President, may adjust procedural arrangements in the Court if necessary or expedient to do so.

Bench books and list of authorities

15. The Court may publish such bench books and/or lists of general authorities as it considers appropriate and make such material available on or linked to from the Court web-pages.  Where notice of such material is published, List participants will be deemed to be on notice of such material.  The foregoing is without prejudice to the right of the Court to refer in any given judgment to material not cited by the parties.  It is a matter for the Court in a given case whether any such material might be drawn to the parties’ attention prior to a formal judgment, and if so whether to do so (a) during the hearing, (b) after the hearing by inviting any comment or (c) by circulating a draft judgment prior to finalisation of the matter with the opportunity to comment before a final judgment.

Users’ Group

16. There will be a Planning and Environment Court Users’ Group as a forum for the expression of stakeholder views on the efficient and effective running of the List and for consultation of stakeholders on procedural developments in the List.  The group will be chaired by the Judge in charge of the List and the registrars primarily assigned to the List will be ex officio members.  The other members will act in an individual capacity and will be appointed by the Judge in charge of the List in consultation with the President to include stakeholders collectively reflecting a range of perspectives in the List including individual members in a position to liaise with and/or reflect the views of relevant barristers’ and solicitors’ professional bodies.

3 – THE REGISTRAR

Functions of List Registrar

17. The functions of the List Registrar will include all functions assigned by the Courts Service and in particular the following, subject to the directions of the Judge in charge of the List:

(a) arranging for the administrative listing or adjournment of matters by direction of the Court or on consent and for the processing of other consent orders on the papers as directed by the Court;

(b) maintaining and managing access to records including the ShareFile platform;

(c) preparing the Legal Diary for the List;

(d) maintaining the Court’s micro-site on the Courts Service website;

(e) conducting the Registrar’s Callover on sitting Mondays on which the main List is held;

(f) perfecting orders and/or liaising with the Central Office in cases where formal orders are not required;

(g) maintaining an email circulation list of List stakeholders and publication of notices regarding the List; and

(h) generally giving administrative effect to directions of the Judge in charge of the List as regards the List generally and orders in particular cases assigned to individual Judges of the List in co-operation with the Courts Service as appropriate where administrative issues fall for consideration.

Listings

18. The List Registrar may list any matter in, or potentially for admission to, the List, for mention before the Judge in charge of the Planning & Environment List, or if directed by him or her, before another Judge of the List for any appropriate reason including where any party makes a reasoned request for a listing or where the Court so directs.  The Court may also list cases as it considers appropriate such as where no or insufficient progress has been made with the case for a period of time.  In such cases the Court may fix a hearing date irrespective of whether parties apply.

Electronic records

19. Each case in this List will be allocated a ShareFile folder for the uploading of soft copies of core documents, pleadings and exhibits related to the proceedings.  Legal practitioners are required to contact the List Registrar to gain access to the ShareFile folder for their case providing the record number and title of the proceedings.  Practitioners are also to provide the names and email addresses of the individuals requiring access to the ShareFile folder, who shall be advised to comply with ShareFile format rules.

20. On the expiry of 6 weeks from the expiry of the normal appeal period (28 days) after the conclusion of the case at High Court level, the ShareFile folder for the case may be deleted.  Any party that wishes the folder to be retained due to leave to appeal, an intended or actual appeal, any other post-judgment application, or any other reason, should contact the List Registrar within that period.  If the folder can be deleted earlier by agreement, parties should advise the List Registrar.

Legal diary and circulation list

21. Notices relevant to the Court will be published by the List Registrar on courts.ie.  Reminders regarding such information, ongoing updates and the circulation of draft lists will be emailed to an email circulation list of interested legal representatives or personal litigants which will be maintained by the List Registrar.  Any interested practitioner or litigant will be added to this list on request by furnishing an email address to the List Registrar by contacting [email protected], on an inclusive and equal basis.  List participants will be removed from this list on request.  The draft Monday Legal Diary will be circulated to this list in advance, normally mid-week.  Matters may be removed from the List by parties or the Court up to 14:00 on the Thursday before the Monday in question.  Efforts should be made to add any new matters to the List by that time, but subject to the discretion of the Court such matters may be added for good reason up to the time of circulation of the List.  The List Registrar will endeavour to circulate the final Legal Diary by 16:30 on the Friday before the Monday in question. 

4 – SITTINGS

Registrar’s Callover

22. The Registrar’s Callover applies to the main List before the Judge in charge of the List and will normally take place on alternate sitting Mondays.  The List Registrar may for example administratively direct parties in a given case to the appropriate Judge of the List in the light of general directions in that regard from the Judge in charge of the List (with particular reference to matters likely to absorb significant time on a given sitting Monday), or let matters stand for the Judge’s List immediately following the Registrar’s Callover, deal with consent applications for short adjournments (not including leave/ ex parte applications, but up to 8 weeks excluding vacations) or consent directions/ amendment of directions not including final orders, or adjourn matters to the virtual List to Fix Dates (VLFD) as appropriate with liberty to the parties to enter such matters in the List as required.  List participants are required to maintain similar decorum in the Registrar’s Callover as in the Judge’s List.

Monday sittings

23. Parties are encouraged to agree as many issues as possible and to communicate such agreement to the List Registrar as soon as possible.  Short matters and mentions will generally be taken on such Mondays as may be determined by the Judge in charge of the List, subject to any contrary direction of the Court.  Typically the main List will take place every other Monday in Term.

Mode of sitting

24. The mode of sitting will be determined by the Court either generally or for individual cases.  Where remote participation is available, trial participants not addressing the Court during hybrid proceedings should use an observation channel where available.  If using a participation channel they should:

(a) sign in with a full name;

(b) keep their microphones muted and camera switched off when not addressing the Court; and

(c) use the participation channel only where they have a speaking role.

25. Remote participation on a participation channel should be from a location free from detectable background noise and separate from the link being accessed by non-participants.  Remote participation access by video on a participation channel should, if possible, be from a location consistent with the formality of the exercise of a right of audience.  If this is not possible or if video is unavailable, a hearing participant can participate by audio only subject to the foregoing.

26. No form of audio or visual recordings of any proceedings apart from the official DAR or stenography approved or deemed by the Court is permitted.  Failure to abide by these requirements will lead to termination of access without prejudice to any other consequences.

27. Solicitors may attend on counsel remotely (via the observation channel if that channel is available, or if not, through other remote/hybrid means) irrespective of the method by which counsel are participating (whether remote or physical).  Remote attendance by solicitors should be on the basis that communications have been arranged to enable counsel to conveniently and expeditiously seek and be given instructions during the hearing.

28. By virtue of the right of counsel to robe or not at their election, the consent of the Court is not required if counsel wish to appear either unrobed or robed but without gowns at any particular time. 

Applications outside scheduled sittings

29. Where no Judge assigned to the Court is sitting at the time it is proposed to make an application, the moving party should contact the List Registrar to obtain directions by or on behalf of the Judge in charge of the List as to how and when the application may be made subject to the giving of appropriate notice to all other parties.

5 – LIST PARTICIPANTS

Communications with the Court

30. List Registrars should be contacted by emailing [email protected].  Court stakeholders should only email or copy the Judicial Assistant for the relevant Judge if requested to do so.  Court stakeholders should correspond with registrars/ Judicial Assistants/ the Court generally in a non-contentious manner.  In general other than in respect of ex parte applications, parties communicating with the List Registrar or otherwise with the Court should copy all other parties participating in the (relevant module of the) proceedings.  Any open inter partes correspondence regarding matters liable to be raised at a Monday (or other) listing of the matter should be copied to the List Registrar and uploaded to the relevant ShareFile folder.  Materials should be served on other parties prior to being uploaded to ShareFile.

31. Where queries to the List Registrar are already answered by Frequently Asked Questions published on courts.ie (currently https://www.courts.ie/planning-and-environment-court-frequently-asked-questions), correspondents may not receive a detailed/individualised reply.  Where correspondence with the Court/ Judicial Assistants and/or the List Registrar is of such a nature, frequency or volume as to absorb a disproportionate amount of the Court’s time or other resources, any such correspondent may be required to communicate only in such manner as may be directed (e.g. only in open court when the matter is listed in the Legal Diary and/or only by formal notice of motion grounded upon affidavit), and his or her correspondence outside parameters so directed may not receive attention or reply.

32. If a List participant has queries in relation to getting access to the Court, including accessibility queries for participants with disabilities or special requirements, they should email the access officer at [email protected] and [email protected] in advance of their listing in order to make the Courts Service aware of such needs.  Participants should note that the Monday List which normally takes a full day can be a busy environment and they may need to wait some time for their case to be called on.  If this causes a participant a significant access problem they should make contact as above with a view to potentially being offered a listing at an alternative quieter time.

File sharing platform

33. Unless the Court has otherwise directed, each party should prepare and upload its own papers and the document management party (DMP) should, in consultation with the other party or parties, review and ensure compliance with the format of papers for the trial of the proceedings on the Court’s file sharing platform, in the form and manner and by such time and including such content as may be directed, including ensuring the correct and complete management of electronic documentation or if expressly directed otherwise provide papers in such manner as is directed.

34. Exhibits are to be uploaded to ShareFile as individual documents with appropriate file names descriptive of the contents, and in searchable format as far as possible.  Where a bundle of documents are exhibited, the affidavit should contain a list of such documents.  While these may formally be combined in a large exhibit they should generally be uploaded separately to enable parties access documents easily.  Composite exhibit books are not generally required.  Parties should endeavour to give appropriate notice to other parties of the documents likely to be significantly relied on at the hearing.

35. Unless otherwise requested in an individual case in a particular respect, or as set out below or in guidance notes, no hard copy papers are required to be furnished to the Court.  Where the Court requests hard copies of identified document(s), parties should provide only the hard copies so identified rather than the papers generally.

36. All relevant documents are to be uploaded to the case ShareFile folder in the specified format.  For any hearing, parties should however consider whether any documents particularly including maps, diagrams or images are in sufficient resolution to assist the Court and if not, should consider providing a hard copy.

37. Apart from matters of which judicial notice can be taken by law, no documents of potential evidential import should be uploaded to ShareFile unless duly exhibited on affidavit (save by agreement or in case of urgency where the affidavit concerned has not yet been sworn).

38. Parties should co-operate with the List Registrar to maintain a list of the solicitors and barristers (and, where applicable, litigants in person) who have access to the ShareFile link for the proceedings, by recording their names and email addresses.

39. Parties should upload all new papers in an organised manner, with file names that are descriptive of the contents (and in accordance with the file naming conventions as are stipulated in this Practice Direction) and that are uploaded in a way that avoids proliferation of sub-folders.  Each party should be primarily responsible for uploading, location and correct naming of its own documents.  No access to file deletion will be permitted.

40. No files should be placed in the root directory.  All papers should be placed in the relevant folder or sub-folder.

41. No sub-folders (other than for exhibits) may be created except in consultation with List Registrars, for example where this is a desirable way to organise individual sub-books of papers.

42. When preparing/uploading papers in Word document format, practitioners should clear formatting as much as possible (including accepting all changes marked with the “Track Changes” function) other than a non-excessive number of appropriate “headings”.  Word documents should be in a minimum of 12 point type.

43. Amended pleadings may not be submitted using Track Changes.  The changes should be underlined (this does not need to be in red font) in the case of additions and struck through in the case of deletions.  Track Changes is unacceptable for this purpose because it results in the formatting disappearing when changes are accepted.  Coloured fonts are not required.

44. Subject to the in camera rule and to not prejudicing any reasonably anticipated potential applications regarding redaction, there is no prohibition on bona fide representatives of the press being informed of the existence or content of pleadings and similar documents prior to such matters being opened in Court.

45. Documents uploaded to the password-protected ShareFile platform should be in a readily openable format (PDF or DOCX) and should not be made time-limited or otherwise inaccessible by for example themselves being individually password-protected.  ShareFile naming conventions are as follows:

(a) All documents (other than exhibits – but the folder containing the exhibits to a particular affidavit should have a date-based 6-digit number at the start of the folder name) should have a 6-digit number at the start of the file name indicating the date of the document (not of upload), in format YYMMDD (not YY.MM.DD) – the purpose of this is to ensure that all documents will sort in chronological order.

(b) All file names should be descriptive but need not be formal.  They should be as short as is consistent with being informative to persons other than the creator of the document, e.g., not “Vol 8 exhibits” but “240401 Vol. 8 – EIAR” etc.; not “Registered Letter to Bloggs & Co dated 15 December 2019) but “191215 Roe to Bloggs”.  (Short file names reduce downloading difficulties due to excessively long filepaths).

(c) Large files should be avoided, and ideally each individual exhibit should have its own PDF file titled as above.

(d) File names and folder names together should not create filepaths so long as to interfere with downloading of documents.

(e) Any amended SOGs should be uploaded with a file name along the lines of:

• YYMMDD SOG;
• YYMMDD Amended SOG; and
• YYMMDD Second amended SOG etc.

(f) Contents pages included in PDFs consisting of multiple documents should briefly describe each document rather than merely give its reference number.

46. The ShareFile folder will typically contain folders along the following lines:

• Word Submissions
• Exhibits
• Correspondence
• List of Authorities
• Word Pleadings
• Core Book
• All Other Papers
  

47. Parties should upload all papers for the attention of the Court (as they are generated) to the ShareFile folder for the case.  These should be in searchable PDF format in so far as possible, save where MS Word format is required.  Such documents include the following (which may be varied by order in a particular case):

48. If and to the extent that any other file sharing platform is put in place, this Practice Direction shall apply to such platform mutatis mutandis as it applies to ShareFile.

49. Where Rules of Court require hard copy filing of particular papers, parties should comply with any such requirements.  Insofar as reference is made to the electronic provision of documents, this does not constitute “electronic filing” provided for in s. 20 Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.

Service on State parties

50. For any purpose connected with the Court, service of documents at any stage (including correspondence either before or after the issue of proceedings) on parties normally represented by the CSSO (particularly Ireland, the Attorney General, the Government of Ireland, a Minister of the Government, a Minister of State, a Government Department or any other organ of central government) should be via the CSSO and not directly on such parties.  

Time-lines for upload of papers

 51. All papers (including written legal submissions, the list of authorities and the final statement of case) for any hearing should be uploaded 14 days in advance of the hearing unless the Court otherwise directs.

Pleadings generally

52. It is the responsibility of each party at all times to ensure that the party’s pleadings conform to the requirements of the rules, this Practice Direction and other law.  The grant of leave or any other order by the Court in a given case does not constitute approval of or excuse any non-compliance save where a specific order is granted to that effect.

Document management party

53. There shall be a document management party (DMP) for each case.  By default, the party having carriage of the proceedings (if represented), i.e., the applicant in judicial review proceedings, will be the DMP for the purposes of the proceedings unless the parties otherwise agree or the Court otherwise directs.  If the applicant is unrepresented, the first named respondent will be the DMP by default unless a priority procedure applies in which case the notice party will be the DMP by default.  If the DMP is not participating in a particular module or stage (for example a CJEU reference), the functions of the DMP will be carried out by such other party as may be agreed or directed.  All other parties should co-operate with the reasonable requests of the DMP as to the completion of its tasks.  The DMP should prepare the first draft of documents such as indices to books of pleadings, exhibits, and authorities or other documents to be agreed.  The DMP should endeavour to ensure that the ShareFile folder is correctly set up and populated with all papers in the proceedings, and that files are correctly constituted, named and assigned to the appropriate folder, as well as co-ordinate the preparation of any documents to be agreed.  Where a party has not uploaded or named files/folders correctly, the DMP should request such party to rectify the matter, and in the absence of rectification the DMP should liaise with the List Registrar to obtain file permissions to correct the matter.  Such changes should be notified to the other parties.

Applications other than by way of judicial review

54. The procedural provisions of this Practice Direction are primarily phrased in terms of their application to judicial review as the predominant form of litigation in the Court.  In the case of proceedings other than by way of judicial review (such as plenary proceedings or applications by originating notice of motion such as under O. 84C RSC or by way of environmental enforcement) where unmodified direct application of a provision of this Practice Direction is not appropriate, parties are requested, insofar as reasonable and practicable, and subject to any directions of the Court, to apply such provision with such modifications as may be necessary or appropriate having regard to the differing forms of litigation that may arise.  In cases of doubt, consent of the other parties or directions of the Court should be sought.  More detailed protocols regarding such application/modification may be issued by guidance notes as necessary in relation to particular types of litigation.

6 – PRE-COMMENCEMENT AND FORMAT OF PAPERS

Intended applications

55. Where an applicant intends to make any application, the applicant should in the first instance contact the List Registrar to indicate the intention to do so (whether O. 103 r. 20(2) RSC applies or the application is of any other type).  Such contact should be made as early as possible so that appropriate directions can be given.  The List Registrar will then advise as appropriate as to a mention date and arrange to create a ShareFile folder and provide details as appropriate to which papers should be uploaded in advance of the first mention of the matter if possible, for the assistance of the Court.

Parties

56. Where an applicant or other party is not a legal person, the initiating papers should include such information as to be sufficient to identify the names and contact addresses of the relevant legal person(s) concerned and to establish the standing of the party concerned. 

57. The following should be named as respondents:

(a) any party against whom relief (including declaratory relief) is sought (likewise, any such party should not be a notice party only, and any parties against whom no relief is actually sought should not be respondents – for this purpose, the fact that general declaratory relief (not related to a specific alleged wrong by a party) may affect a party is not a basis for naming that party as a respondent as opposed to as a notice party);

(b) Ireland and the Attorney General in any case where:

(i)    non-transposition or inadequate transposition of any EU law obligation is pleaded (it is not necessary to name the Government of Ireland or individual Ministers);

(ii)   non-implementation or inadequate implementation of any properly transposed or directly effective EU law obligation is pleaded; and/or

(iii) the (constitutional/ EU law) validity or ECHR-compatibility of any primary or secondary legislation, or other measure of general application (such as a guideline) is impugned (it is not necessary to name the Government of Ireland or individual Ministers);

(c) the public law entities responsible for implementation of transposed legislation (normally the public law body given such function by the transposing measure), in any case where non-implementation or inadequate implementation of any properly transposed or directly effective EU law obligation is pleaded; and

 (d) the public law entities responsible for making a decision in any case where their decision is challenged or one of their acts is put in question (for example, a local authority in the case of an extension of a permission, or a local area plan) including any case where the proceedings challenge the making of secondary legislation or any measure of general application.

58. The following should be named as notice parties unless already named as respondents:

(a)  the public law entity responsible for the making of a measure of general application (other than primary legislation or secondary legislation made by Central Government) (e.g. in the case of a development plan, the council concerned) the interpretation of which arises in the proceedings;

(b) any person whose application/appeal to the relevant decision-taker resulted in the impugned decision;

(c) any other identifiable owners of the land (including those who have consented to the application for the permission as part of the application process) in any case where the proceedings seek an order affecting an interest in lands (for example by challenging the validity of a permission or of a provision in a development plan regarding the zoning of such lands), and the party that sought permission (if applicable) is not the full owner of the land concerned or all of it, save where the Court otherwise directs or where the number of such other owners makes this impracticable;

(d) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission in any case where there is an ECHR-compatibility challenge to a measure of general application (see O. 60A RSC); and

(e) any other party whose rights may be significantly affected by any order the Court might make.

59. Without prejudice to the power of the Court to add parties where appropriate, a statutory consultee or similar body may, at the option of the applicant if he or she considers they may be in a position to assist the Court, be named as notice parties (unless already named as respondents), but if voluntarily named by an applicant (or added by the Court) will participate on a bearing-own-costs and not-liable-for-costs basis (unless otherwise ordered for special reasons, but any such order shall not affect costs already incurred prior to such order).

60. Any person not named in the proceedings (including Ireland and the Attorney General) may apply to the Court to be joined as a respondent, notice party or amicus curiae as legally appropriate.

61. A party should inform the Court whether it intends to participate in the proceedings by the first return date or as soon as possible thereafter.

Statements of grounds and grounding affidavits

As to required title of proceedings see O. 103 r. 4 RSC.

As to papers required to accompany an application and affidavits generally see O. 103 rr. 14 to 16 RSC.

Reliefs generally [Section D of the SOG]

62. The Court may require parties to revise pleadings to ensure compliance with this Practice Direction and/or O. 103 RSC.

63. Pleadings which claim an excessive number of reliefs and/or involve an excessive number of grounds are inappropriate.  Accordingly, SOGs should not normally claim relief that is in substance merely repetitive of the primary relief sought.  Nor should grounds be pleaded as repetitive reformulations.  Reliefs in relation to documents or instruments should be addressed to the documents or instruments themselves rather than to any abstract or prior decision to make, adopt, publish or promulgate the instrument (for example – an order quashing (or declaration regarding) a document, as opposed to of the decision to adopt, or to publish, the document, if these steps were carried out by the same legal entities).  If exceptionally the respondent has decided to make a document or instrument prior to the date of issue of proceedings but has not actually done so as of such date, the appropriate relief should be an order quashing the document or instrument when made (and if necessary an order requiring the respondent to make a record of the decision for the purpose of having it quashed).  If exceptionally the entity making the document is a different entity from that endorsing or adopting the document, then reliefs in relation to both decisions (i.e., the decision to make by entity A and the decision to adopt by entity B) can be claimed.

64. Relief by way of an order quashing a decision should specify whether the whole or merely a specific part of a decision is sought to be quashed.  Where opposing parties agree that an impugned part is properly severable, they may call upon an applicant to confirm that the balance of the decision is unchallenged and may proceed to be implemented.  Failure to so confirm without proper basis may have costs consequences.  Apart from interim reliefs (matters such as stays or extensions of time as set out below), the reliefs section only needs to claim substantive final reliefs.  Interlocutory relief should not be included apart from an optional general formula as set out below.  Further and other relief should normally be expressly claimed.  Costs are a substantive relief and should be expressly claimed.  An applicant is not required to anticipate any defence, for example by pleading matters relevant to whether relief should be refused as a matter of discretion. 

65 Parties are reminded of the general principle that challenges to decisions made in the course of the process can be saved for the final challenge.  Parties are encouraged to agree the practical application of this doctrine in any particular case.  In the event of doubt, a party considering challenging any preliminary decision prior to a final substantive decision should seek consent from the proposed opposing parties to the effect that no point will be taken against the applicant if the challenge is postponed to the final decision and that any extension of time for that purpose, if required, will be consented to.  

Declaratory relief

66. Specific declaratory relief should be sought in the following situations:

(a) where it is alleged that any provision of primary or secondary legislation or a document of general application (such as a guideline) is invalid, whether by reference to vires, national law, the Constitution, EU law, or otherwise;

(b) where it is alleged that any provision of primary or secondary legislation or a document of general application (such as a guideline) is incompatible with ECHR provisions for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003;

(c) where it is alleged that the State has failed to transpose at all an element of EU law;

(d) where it is alleged that the purported transposition by the State of an element of EU law is inadequate, incomplete or defective; and

(e) where a legal error is alleged in respect of which the applicant is not seeking an order quashing the decision. 

67. Where the validity or ECHR-compatibility of legislation or an instrument or document of general application is challenged, declaratory relief should be the primary relief sought in that respect.  Applicants normally can plead such relief as the only relief in respect of such grounds (on the basis that declaratory relief in respect of general instruments can be sought as and when such measures are applied to particular situations). 

68. Specific declaratory relief is not generally appropriate in the following situations:

(a) Where the declaration is in substance a reformulation of the claim for an order quashing the decision or amounts to a claim that one or more of the grounds for such an order are well founded; for example, if the main claim is an order quashing the decision on the grounds of lack of vires, an additional claim for a declaration that the decision is ultra vires adds nothing.  Practitioners should have regard to the principle that duplicative relief is not normally granted, and that therefore, with limited exceptions as set out above, declarations are generally redundant if substantive relief by way of a quashing and/or mandatory order is granted, and are inappropriate if that substantive relief is refused.

(b) Where declarations merely set out the grounds for the other reliefs claimed.  Generally, any claim for declaratory relief should not itemise the specific errors concerned.  That should be done in the grounds.

(c) Where the applicant is seeking clarification or confirmation as to the meaning of some legal provision or doctrine; generally any such clarifications, if the Court thinks it appropriate to provide them, will be provided in the judgment of the Court without the necessity for a specific declaration (or may be provided by way of recital in the order to be made, without that giving rise to any implications in costs).

69. If, or to the extent that, an applicant wishes to claim declaratory relief in some respect not covered by the foregoing, an applicant may plead a fall-back relief along the lines of: “Such declaration(s) of the legal rights and/or legal position of the applicant and persons similarly situated and/or of the legal duties and/or legal position of the respondent as the Court considers appropriate”, or a relief to the like effect.

Mandatory relief

70. Parties are reminded that save in respect of relief for the purpose of preventing damage to the environment of an immediate or proximate nature, if mandatory relief is sought in the SOG as a main relief (not including a mandatory order that follows consequentially on an order quashing a decision or other substantive relief) compelling a respondent to take a step that it has legal power to take without any order of the Court, it is generally appropriate for the applicant, prior to issuing the proceedings, to call upon the respondent to take or agree to take specified steps and to allow a reasonable time in that regard.

Interim or interlocutory relief

As to applications for extension of time (save for 2024 Act proceedings) by way of plea in the SOG and/or by way of motion see O. 103 r. 10 RSC.

71. Interim orders, including where intended to be sought at the date on which leave is sought (such as an interim injunction or stay), or orders that are preconditions for the grant of leave in the first place (such as an extension of time) should be expressly claimed as reliefs in the SOG or, unless granted prior to that point, in the originating notice of motion in accordance with O. 103 r. 14(4) RSC.

72. As provided for in O. 103 r. 14(4) RSC, interlocutory reliefs need not be, and should not be claimed in a SOG.  Omission of any such relief does not in any way prejudice the entitlement of an applicant to seek such relief at a later stage whether by motion or otherwise as permitted by the Court.  An applicant may however for the avoidance of doubt include a relief along the following lines: “Such interlocutory relief as the Court may order, including interlocutory relief provided for in the Practice Direction for the time being applicable to the Planning & Environment Court List”.  Such a general claim will be taken to include a claim for the following in the event that such orders were to arise, but any specific request for such an order may be required to be brought by formal notice of motion as provided for in this Practice Direction:

(a) orders or declarations as to costs protection;
(b) such interlocutory directions as may be appropriate;
(c) liberty to amend pleadings;
(d) liberty to file further pleadings;
(e) liberty to file further affidavits;
(f) interlocutory stays or injunctions;
(g) discovery, particulars or interrogatories or for disclosure of information or material whether pursuant to the duty on opposing parties to place their cards face up or otherwise;
(h) directions that the opposing parties provide a full account of the decision-making process and/or otherwise comply with the duty of candour;
(i) orders for cross-examination;
(j) an order referring a question to the CJEU;
(k) liberty to apply; and
(l) any other interlocutory relief that the Court has jurisdiction to grant.

Grounds [Section E of the SOG]

73. The core grounds should commence with the number 1 (in Arabic numerals), and the numbering of grounds should increase by single integers thereafter.  The numbering should be continuous throughout all sections of the core grounds, particulars of grounds, jurisdictional criteria, and factual grounds, and should not recommence at 1 in any sub-heading.  Sub-numberings such as 1.1 etc. should be avoided.  Any glossaries or other similar apparatus should be placed after the end of the factual grounds and not at the start.  Inconsistent pleas are liable to be struck out unless expressly phrased as alternatives.

Core Grounds

74. If there are more than two pages of legal grounds, the first part should be headed “Core Grounds” and should set out the summary grounds of challenge in numbered paragraphs, starting with 1.  It may not exceed 2 pages.  The core grounds should be divided into sub-parts in accordance with Appendix NN to the RSC.

75. Domestic law points will be considered on the assumption that EU law does not add to what would otherwise be the domestic law position, but this assumption will be revisited in the event that the Court finds it necessary to consider the issue from an EU law standpoint.

76. Where any grounds are included that correspond to reliefs which require express articulation as set out above (such as lack of transposition), such reliefs should be included, so that in all cases there is a correspondence between reliefs and grounds.  Where reliance is placed in either the core grounds or the particulars of grounds on any provision of EU law, the relevant transposing provision of Irish law should also be cited unless legally irrelevant.  Where reliance is placed in either the core grounds or the particulars of grounds on any provision of domestic law that transposes EU law, the relevant provision of EU law should also be cited unless legally irrelevant.  Where reliance is placed on a domestic law provision that transposes an EU law obligation, the point concerned should be addressed in the EU law grounds sub-part.  The domestic law sub-part should be reserved for purely domestic points with no EU dimension, and domestic and EU law grounds should be kept separate and distinct to the maximum extent possible and convenient.

77. Where declarations are sought as to non-transposition or inadequate transposition, or as to validity of legislation, instruments or policy documents, appropriate grounds should be included in respect of any such declarations referring expressly to the relevant provisions of EU law, the Constitution, etc. allegedly contravened.  In particular in relation to non-transposition claims, pleas should be included:

(a) identifying the precise provision not transposed;

(b) establishing such non-transposition by relevance to national law overall rather than any single piece of transposing legislation;

(c) specifying how the non-transposition jeopardises the achievement of the aims of the directive in practice; and

(d) relating the non-transposition to the particular facts of the case in question.

78. Any claim in relation to transposition-type issues should clearly distinguish between claims of lack of application (that a transposed provision of EU law has not been properly applied by the decision-taker), lack of transposition (that a specific provision of EU law has not been transposed), inadequate transposition (that a purported transposing measure has been adopted and that such measure is not itself invalid but is inadequate in some specific identified way), and invalidity (that the adopted measure is invalid by reference to EU law as positively contravening some EU law obligation).

79. Where a point is being made that straddles more than one sub-part (for example that in some identified respect the decision is contrary to administrative law and to a directive or  transposing legislation), the complaint may be pleaded in the most appropriate part, but preferably would be split into two grounds, one being that insofar as concerns domestic law the decision is infirm by reference to the issue relied on, and the other ground relating to the issue insofar as concerns EU law including transposing legislation. 

Particulars of Grounds

80. The “Particulars of Grounds” section should set out detailed sub-grounds of challenge in numbered paragraphs consisting of ascending integers in Arabic numerals, continuing the numbering sequence from the core grounds (so that for example if there are 12 core grounds, the first particulars ground is no. 13).  Preferably, the relevant core ground should be set out again at the head of the relevant sub-grounds in the particulars section.  Parties should endeavour to avoid sub-grounds which introduce wholly new points not encompassed even generally in the relevant core ground.  Where the grounds are phrased to refer to an order quashing the decision specifically, but declaratory relief is also sought, a general ground to the effect that the former grounds are also relied on for declaratory relief should be included at the end of this section.  Any general wording such as that the applicant relies on the grounding affidavit or the papers generally is superfluous and such a position will be taken as read.

Jurisdictional Criteria

81. The “Jurisdictional Criteria” part, explaining how the application meets any relevant jurisdictional criteria that could reasonably be in dispute, by reference to particular identified statutory provisions or legal doctrines (e.g., standing, legal capacity in the case of an unincorporated body, exhaustion of remedies if an appeal or review mechanism exists), should be set out in numbered paragraphs consisting of ascending integers in Arabic numerals, continuing the numbering sequence from the particulars of grounds.

Factual Grounds

82. The “Factual Grounds” part should be structured so that the relevant facts and matters relied on should be set out in numbered paragraphs consisting of ascending integers in Arabic numerals, continuing the numbering sequence from the jurisdictional criteria.  This should include the facts required by O. 103 r. 14(2)(a) RSC as part of a comprehensive chronological narrative indicating the dates of each relevant factual occurrence or procedural step concerned.  The “Factual grounds” section of the SOG should include, where applicable, dates/details of pre-application consultations, the permission application, any relevant reports/assessments, views/decisions of elected members and of the council, any submissions of particular relevance to the proceedings, any inspector’s report, and of the decision.  Grounds which are in the nature of legal grounds or more appropriate for inclusion in the particulars of legal grounds ought not to be included in the section of the SOG entitled “Factual Grounds”.  Contested facts can be included in the factual grounds section as long as they are purely factual.  Merely outlining or reciting provisions of documents, legislation or legal instruments can be in either the factual or legal grounds section at the option of the applicant, depending on readability.  Any point that is a mixed question of fact and law should be in the legal grounds, and likewise any commentary on the facts or interpretation of their implications going beyond a mere factual recitation should be in the legal grounds.

Format

83. SOGs should be dated at the end and should state the names of any legal practitioners who settled them.

Grounding affidavits

84. In accordance with O. 103 r. 15(2) RSC, all documents that, in the opinion of the applicant, are relevant to the issues raised by the SOG should be exhibited to the applicant’s grounding affidavit, insofar as such documents are in the possession of the applicant.  Exhibition of documents subject to judicial notice is not required (see O. 103 r. 16(3) RSC), but if the application of that doctrine is not agreed, or if uncertainty could arise in relation to the document or if it is more convenient to have it formally on the papers it is preferable to exhibit such a document.

7 – COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS/ MAKING OF APPLICATION TO ADMIT

As to commencement of proceedings see O. 103 rr. 7 and 8 RSC.
As to conversion by the Court of the proceedings into another form of application see O. 103 rr. 11 and 12 RSC.

First appearance in List

85. New proceedings in the List not requiring leave (including by way of appeal from the Circuit Court, the Commissioner for Environmental Information, or otherwise) will normally be returnable before the next main list.

86. New proceedings in the List that do required leave will normally be listed on the next convenient Monday following filing of papers.  Proceedings not requiring leave will normally be listed in the next main List following filing of papers.  It is the responsibility of the applicant to give notice to all other parties and to make contact with the List Registrar before or immediately after filing of papers in order to confirm the listing and set up a ShareFile folder.  It is the responsibility of the applicant to have papers in order and to be in a position to move the application when listed and called.  No ex parte application including an ex parte leave application will be adjourned administratively or in the Registrar's Callover in any circumstances.  All leave applications should be listed before a Judge as soon as the List Registrar becomes aware of them and adjourned only on application made to a Judge in open court or (in the case of sudden force majeure) by advance direction of the Judge before whom the matter is due to be listed.  Where an applicant seeks to adjourn an ex parte application, the resumed hearing may be directed to be on notice.  Proceedings or intended proceedings will be first listed before the Court as follows:

(a) Any appropriate application may be made in an action intended to be instituted that is proper for the List, including by way of interim or interlocutory injunctive relief, and the moving party should communicate with the List Registrar to obtain a suitable date.

(b) Any matter that is to be automatically listed in the List will be entered in the next convenient sitting Monday (or earlier if urgent), and parties should communicate with the List Registrar for that purpose.

(c) Any matter not automatically listed in the List but where a party intends to bring a motion to admit to the List should be mentioned to the List Registrar for the purposes of being given a return date for such a motion or of being entered in the next convenient sitting Monday (or earlier if urgent) for the purposes of making such an order on consent if applicable.

(d) Plenary actions (or any other matter that is not automatically listed by the Central Office) that are appropriate for the List should be mentioned to the List Registrar as soon as they are issued, whether or not they have been served, for the purpose of listing and case management, irrespective of whether they require mention to the Court under Rules of Court.  Failure by a party for any significant period to request a listing by the List Registrar of any matter that is not listed automatically by the Central Office will be taken as a being conduct that may warrant adverse costs orders and/or an order striking out the proceedings.

Application to admit case to the Court

As to admission/removal of cases from the List see O. 103 rr. 19-21 RSC.

87. The provisions of this Practice Direction relating to applications to admit a case to the Court do not apply to matters that are to be listed automatically in the Court.

88. A party who intends to apply for the admission of proceedings to the Court should do so by communicating with the List Registrar in the first instance.  Where admission is on consent, the List Registrar will arrange for the listing of the matter without the necessity for a motion.  Where a party wishes to mention a leave application prior to and in anticipation of making the application for admission to the Court, it may do so and the Court will provide a return date for a motion to admit and will normally adjourn the leave application to that date.  In particular, a judicial review applicant who intends to make such an application is encouraged to apply to the Court through the List Registrar at the earliest stage, preferably prior to or at the first mention of the judicial review application.  The vacation of mention dates in other lists pursuant to O. 103 r. 19(9) RSC does not undermine or prejudice in any way the right of any other party to oppose the application for admission to the Court, but rather ensures that the matter will be dealt with in a logical sequence.

89. An application (other than on consent) to admit a case to the Court should be made by notice of motion in accordance with O. 103 r. 20(1) RSC.  Prior to issuing the motion, the moving party should arrange with the List Registrar for the creation of a ShareFile folder for the case.  When serving papers the moving party should ensure that all pleadings and affidavits are uploaded to ShareFile and that the respondent(s) to the motion are informed of the email address to apply to in order to arrange access to this folder.  The motion seeking admission to the Court should not be moved, and the Court should not be informed that papers are in order, unless either all parties consent to admission or the other parties have been duly served: see O. 103 r. 7(6) RSC.  The fee payable under S.I. No. 492 of 2014 is that for an ordinary notice of motion and not for a Commercial Court motion. 

Enforcement proceedings

90. Where environmental enforcement proceedings are brought otherwise by originating notice of motion (by “original proceedings”) the Court may, where appropriate and in the interests of the orderly disposal of the matter, direct that that relief be sought by such notice of motion (unless such proceedings seek other relief such as damages that is more properly claimed by plenary proceedings for example).  If the Court so directs, the application shall be deemed to have been made when the original proceedings were instituted.

91. The originating notice of motion in enforcement proceedings under O. 103 r. 9 RSC should be grounded by an affidavit sworn by or on behalf of the applicant and should:

(a) state the name and address for service of the applicant;
(b) specify any contravention of law for which the respondent is alleged to be responsible;
(c) specify the relief sought; and
(d) give particulars sufficient to identify any land, development or premises sought to be affected by the reliefs sought.

Hearing of leave application

92. In the case of any ex parte leave application, applicants should as soon as practicable following the filing of the proceedings notify all other parties to the proceedings by email or post of the fact of the proceedings and the date of listing and inform them that they may obtain papers for information by contacting the List Registrar to obtain access to ShareFile.  This does not constitute leave on notice.  A leave application will normally be listed on the following sitting Monday.  Leave applications may be listed before any Judge of the List, but if any party wishes to seek a hearing date at the earliest opportunity, the List Registrar should be requested to list the leave application before the Judge in charge of the List.  Where the Court is of the view that it is convenient or appropriate to hear from the opposing parties or any of them it may put the application on notice either by way of a formal notice of motion under O. 103r. 13 RSC or without such a motion.  Where following such notice the application for leave is not opposed, the Court may grant leave if satisfied that that is the appropriate order.  Where leave is opposed, the matter will be adjourned to the main List to fix a date.  Where leave is granted, the originating notice of motion will be returnable before the main List in the absence of any reason to the contrary.

93. Any opposing party will not be under any obligation to attend any ex parte proceedings until formally served (which may be effected electronically) with an originating notice of motion or other similar document such as notice of an order of the Court putting the matter on notice.  Such party will not be prejudiced in any way for not so attending and will not be held to have acquiesced in any step or failed to raise any objection or other matter in a timely way by virtue of such non-attendance.  An opposing party is not required or expected to inform the Court if such party does not intend to so attend.  If such a party does attend, it by default will be permitted to make brief submissions of a procedural nature (for example, to request a direction for leave on notice) but not to argue that the application for leave or any part of it should be refused (unless the Court orders leave on notice).  Such a party will not be required to contribute to the leave hearing unless it so wishes.  If a hearing date is fixed at the ex parte stage, opposing parties should ascertain the availability of potential counsel for that date prior to briefing such counsel.  In the event that there are objective reasons for briefing counsel who is not so available, application can be made to the Court.

94. Where any non-compliance with the format of the SOG or other papers can conveniently be addressed by way of an order granting leave upon the submission to the Court of amended or additional papers in a form directed, the Court may proceed to consider the grant of leave on such basis, but any order will not be perfected until the submission by the applicant to the Court of any amended/additional papers as so directed.  When seeking admission to the Court, leave to apply for judicial review, the fixing of a date or any other relevant order, a party will normally be required to state whether papers are in order, and should not inform the Court that papers are in order unless the papers comply with such requirements and also unless the papers have been properly served, if service is required for the particular application.  Parties should address pleading requirements from the outset, and should endeavour to minimise the need for amendment, the extent of any formatting or other amendments and the number of occasions on which such amendments need to be sought.  In the context of an application for leave to seek judicial review, an applicant may seek liberty to amend the pleadings in accordance with O. 103, r. 17(2) RSC and/or to file affidavits for that purpose or in further support of the leave application; and the Court may direct particularisation or other correction of the SOG in that context.

8 – GRANT OF LEAVE

Default terms of leave order

95. Where leave to seek judicial review applies and is granted, the standard terms which will apply in default of any order to the contrary will be as set out in this Practice Direction.  Any party seeking alternative orders or directions then or later should apply to the Court.  Any order will normally be deemed to include such terms unless they are expressly excluded.  For the purposes of O. 103 r. 17(2) RSC the standard directions / default terms of a leave order will be:

(a) in the event that an extension of time is expressly sought as a relief in the SOG and in addition the applicant orally requests an extension of time and furthermore satisfies the Court to the appropriate standard at the ex parte stage by evidence and/or submission as appropriate that the legal criteria for such an order are met, that time be extended (if the Court is so satisfied) without prejudice to any point that may be raised by the opposing parties;

(b) in the event that the Court is of the opinion that liberty to file an amended SOG should be granted, and in compliance with the procedure as set out in this Practice Direction, and subject to the Court being satisfied of compliance with the statutory requirements, that liberty to file such amended SOG be granted, without prejudice to any point that might have been raised by the opposing parties;

(c) subject to the Court being satisfied as to compliance with the legal threshold applicable to the proceedings for the grant of leave and subject to the Court being satisfied as to each relief and ground meeting such threshold, and subject to the Court being satisfied as to the appropriateness of any given relief or ground (and subject to an order in any given case where the pleadings only partly comply with such requirements and thus to an order excluding one or more specific reliefs or grounds from the grant of leave), that leave be granted for the reliefs sought at section (d) of the (amended) SOG on the grounds set out at section (e), without prejudice to any point that the opposing parties could have made;

(d) the originating notice of motion for judicial review be returnable for 09:30 on the sitting Monday that is on or next after 2 weeks after the date of grant of leave;

(e) service of the notice of motion be effected on all parties not later than 7 days of perfection of the order and not later than 4 clear days before the return date, in accordance with O. 103, r. 7(6) RSC;

(f) service of other papers be effected within 7 days from the grant of leave and not later than 4 clear days before the return date (other than papers already furnished prior to the grant of leave, in respect of which formal service will be waived or service actually effected will be deemed good unless any party applies to have service re-effected and the Court so orders, noting that an amended pleading should be served irrespective of whether prior service of the pleading was effected);

(g) insofar as State parties (i.e., any party that is normally represented by the CSSO such as Ireland, the Attorney General, or a Minister of the Government), are involved in the matter, service on such parties be effected by service on the CSSO on behalf of such parties rather than directly on such parties;

(h) the Court’s default directions schedule will be directed on the return date unless the parties agree otherwise and notify the List Registrar, or unless the Court otherwise orders (such default directions are specified below);

(i) in accordance with the order, all parties should comply with O. 103 r. 18 RSC to share email addresses for the purposes of service;

(j) in the event that a respondent or notice party fails to provide such an email address, service is to be effected by sending the originating notice of motion or other originating pleading by registered post and simultaneously or thereafter by informing the party concerned by registered post that all documents for service will be uploaded to ShareFile, and that contact should be made with the List Registrar to access such ShareFile folder;

(k) where a party is required to serve, or otherwise intends to rely on, any document, that party should email a copy to the other parties that have provided email addresses, and upload a copy to ShareFile;

(l) the opposing parties should indicate in writing in advance of the return date their position on whether, and to what extent, costs protection will apply to the proceedings and that, in the event of agreement, a draft order by the Court noting the terms of such agreement be forwarded to the List Registrar for perfection on behalf of the Court;

(m) if a stay is properly grounded on evidence adduced on affidavit and is sought by the applicant (which may be orally during the hearing of the leave application, because interim or interlocutory relief does not need to be expressly claimed as a relief in the SOG, although it does require to be expressly addressed by affidavit), and if the Court is satisfied in accordance with the applicable principles and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the applicant that it is appropriate to grant a stay, and bearing in mind the principle, where applicable, that proceedings are not to be prohibitively expensive, the implementation of any individual decision impugned in the proceedings or if applicable the processing of any specified application or appeal will be stayed with effect from notification of the stay to the relevant party, with liberty to effect such notification by email or telephone, until the determination of the application for judicial review or until further order or until the stay will have lapsed by reason of the applicant’s failure to serve an originating notice of motion for judicial review, without prejudice to the right of any affected party to apply to the Court on notice in relation to the stay (noting for this purpose that while the Court may, if appropriate, stay an individual decision or a particular process it will not, except in extraordinary circumstances, stay a measure of general application such as a provision of a development plan, as to do so could create a planning outcome, in breach of the separation of powers, contrary to what has been determined by the relevant decision-taker, in the event that applications continue to be processed under non-stayed parts of the measure of general application concerned);

(n) all parties wishing to appear or otherwise act in the proceedings, including notice parties and amici curiae, be required to file an appearance prior to doing so, and thus any solicitor acting for any party (including a solicitor acting for the applicant at the time of institution of the proceedings) who has so appeared or acted be required to obtain the consent of the Court before ceasing to so act unless a formal notice of discharge of such solicitor, signed by the party concerned, or a notice of change of solicitor, is filed in the Central Office;

(o) if service is effected in accordance with the order, costs will be reserved; and if service is not so effected, the costs of the leave application will not be recoverable unless the Court expressly so orders; and

(p) there be liberty to apply.

96. No stay on a measure of general application should be sought ex parte.  Any such stay (for example on development plans or government policy documents) should be made on notice.

Effect of ex parte orders

97. Any order made ex parte is without prejudice to the right of any other party to apply on notice to set aside that order.  Any party aggrieved by an ex parte order (other than a party that applied for and was refused such order) should apply to set it aside before seeking to activate appeal procedures.

9 – DIRECTIONS

As to directions generally see O. 103 r. 32 RSC.

Default directions schedule

98. The standard/default directions schedule for the purposes of O. 103 r. 32(3) RSC and generally will be as follows subject to a general liberty to apply:

If standard/oral evidence procedure applies (mutatis mutandis for non-JR cases):

If written/ issues/ urgent/ expedited procedure applies (mutatis mutandis for non-JR cases):

99. In the foregoing default directions:

(a) “affidavits” includes exhibits and copies of exhibits and should be delivered within the deadlines for the associated affidavits; and

(b) “weeks” includes a week or part of a week in September but otherwise excludes vacations.

100. No delivery or preparation of pleadings, submissions or other papers will be required during August save by consent or where ordered by the Court for urgent reasons such as related to injunctive-type relief.

101. The expedited directions schedule will apply as a default to:

(a) cases related to renewable energy; and

(b) SID/SHD/LRD/AIE cases and proceedings alleged to be SLAPPs, without prejudice to the fact that cases referred to in this sub-paragraph will not automatically be given a hearing on the basis of the expedited procedure in the absence of an application or order to that effect.

Directions in proceedings to be heard on oral evidence

As to directions in cases involving oral evidence see O. 103 rr. 33-34 RSC.

102. On the first, or any subsequent, occasion on which proceedings commenced by plenary summons and intended to be heard on oral evidence are listed before the Judge in charge of the Planning & Environment List, whether by way of application for admission, administrative listing or otherwise, or on any adjournment from such date, the Court may, having heard the parties:

(a) make orders and give directions for the further conduct of the proceedings consistently with the objectives in O. 103 r. 5, and adjourn the proceedings to the VLFD, or to such other date as is directed;

(b) hear and determine any application for the joinder or removal of parties; and

(c) hear and determine any application for interlocutory relief. 

103. Without prejudice to any enactment or rule of law by virtue of which documents or evidence are privileged from disclosure, the Judge in charge of the Planning & Environment List may direct the parties to provide information in respect of the proceedings, including:

(a) a list of the persons expected to give evidence;

(b) particulars of any matter of a technical or scientific nature which may be at issue or may be the subject of evidence;

(c) a reasoned estimate of the parties’ preferences and views as to the time to be spent in:

(i) preparation of the proceedings for trial;

(ii) the trial of the proceedings; and

(iii) the examination or cross-examination (as the case may be) of each or any witness intended to be called by that party or by any other party; and

(d) particulars of any arbitration arrangements or ADR process (within the meaning of O. 56A, r. 1 RSC) which may be available to the parties.

10 – INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS GENERALLY 

As to directions and interim/interlocutory/consequential orders generally see O. 103 rr. 22-23 RSC.
As to strike out applications/ discharge of leave see O. 103 r. 25 RSC.
As to restrictions on undertakings as to damages/ security for costs see O. 103 r. 29 RSC.

Requests for interlocutory listings

104. Without the necessity for any special leave in that regard (unless otherwise directed), parties are at liberty to request a listing at any time for stated cause by emailing the List Registrar.  If possible, parties should correspond on any issues and not raise them with the Court unless agreement has first been sought and refused.  If the matter is sufficiently urgent, attempts will be made to deal with it even in the absence of any scheduled sittings of the Court and therefore in general any urgent applications should be brought to the attention of the List Registrar as soon as they arise. 

105. Where interlocutory matters can be addressed on a de bene esse basis and adjourned to the hearing without undue inconvenience, parties are encouraged to adopt this approach in order to avoid multiple hearings and unnecessary procedural complexity.  The Court may make such an order of its own motion where appropriate 

Applications requiring a formal motion 

106. Save in case of urgency, any inter partes application to the Court should be made by formal notice of motion grounded on affidavit where:

(a) the application is made immediately prior to, during, or following, the actual hearing of the matter; or

(b) the Court so directs either in respect of a particular application, a particular proceeding, or a particular party to such proceeding.

107. An inter partes application to the Court may be made without a formal notice of motion (under O. 124 r. 1 RSC or otherwise) where:

(a) the urgency of the matter precludes such a motion; or

(b) the matter does not fall within the foregoing and the application is reasonably capable of being entertained without a formal notice of motion, provided that the precise application is specified in such form as is appropriate in the circumstances, for example by affidavit, and insofar as the application is required to be grounded on evidence, such evidence is furnished on affidavit or as directed by the Court.

108. The Court may direct that any ex parte application to the Court, or any inter partes application that pursuant to the foregoing might otherwise be made without a formal motion, should be made by formal notice of motion on notice to the other parties (or such of them as may be specified by the Court).  The Court shall normally so direct if requested by any other party.  An ex parte application should otherwise be grounded on a filed ex parte docket, unless the Court permits this to be filed after the application is moved.

Adjournments of interim/interlocutory listing dates

109. Subject to compliance with the requirement for all papers including the final statement of case to be uploaded 14 days in advance of the hearing, parties may agree any consent variation to the schedule of directions strictly subject to the provision of all papers to the Court including submissions by the deadlines referred to in this Practice Direction and guidance notes.  Consent variations of agreed timescales should be notified to the List Registrar and uploaded to ShareFile and shall be deemed to have been approved by the Court on the papers.  In the case of matters not already listed in the Legal Diary, such matters do not normally require to be listed solely for this purpose.  Where there has been default by one party in compliance with directions and another party proposes alternative directions, the parties shall be deemed to have agreed to the alternative directions if there is no response within 7 days or such longer period as may be specified objecting to the directions.

110. Where the Court adjourns an interim/interlocutory listing date due to delay or default by a party, it may make:

(a) an order that any further adjournment be peremptory;

(b) in the case of an ex parte application, an order that any further processing of the application be on notice under O. 103 r. 13(1) RSC or otherwise;

(c) an order modifying the application of the default directions in the particular case so that any time unnecessarily absorbed by the defaulting party will be deducted in whole or in part from that party’s time for a subsequent step;

(d) an order that specified costs of the defaulting or delaying party be disallowed as between party and party or solicitor and client or both;

(e) an order that there be an order for (NPE if applicable) costs against the defaulting party either forthwith or in the event of a further default prior to the adjourned date;

(f) an order truncating the time for the hearing and/or for any other step;

(g) an order changing the format of the hearing to a priority procedure such as the issues procedure; and/or

(h) an order providing for such other consequence as the Court considers appropriate and has jurisdiction to grant (and in that regard the foregoing specific consequences are without prejudice to the powers of the Court whether as to costs or otherwise).

Orders to ensure compliance with directions

111. The Court may make such orders as are necessary to ensure compliance with directions, Rules of Court and this Practice Direction.  In particular, where there has been delay or default by a party, the Court may on the application of another party or on its own motion require such party to certify compliance with the directions (and/or with this Practice Direction and/or Rules of Court) within such time, on such terms, and in such manner as the Court may consider appropriate. 

Alternative dispute resolution

112. The Court will endeavour to support ADR options that appear to have a reasonable prospect of narrowing the issues in any given case.  Parties are encouraged to consider options for ADR where that is a reasonable possibility, bearing in mind the desirability of ADR generally and in particular the fact that Article 16(5) of Directive 2018/2001 inserted by Directive 2023/2413 requires: “that applicants and the general public have easy access to simple procedures for the settlement of disputes concerning the permit-granting procedure and the issuance of permits to build and operate renewable energy plants, including, where applicable, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms”. 

113. Any party may at any time propose that a matter be adjourned for the purpose of exploring such ADR options or of exploring whether a development external to the legal process is capable of resolving the proceedings in whole or in part.  The Court may either on consent or where it considers it appropriate to do so on the application of a party or on the Court’s own motion, so adjourn the matter either generally or for such period as appears appropriate having regard to all of the circumstances.  Where a matter is adjourned for this purpose, all directions will by default be suspended in that period.

114. The Court may of its own motion suggest any procedural or substantive options open to the parties and/or any potential avenue of alternative resolution that seems appropriate to it, but any such proposal does not imply any expectation or pressure on the parties and is without prejudice to the Court’s consideration and resolution of the matter if called upon to do so.  It is to be understood by parties that any proposals by the Court are subject to submissions, are intended to assist in the efficient disposal of proceedings and do not constitute a statement of view on any matter at issue.

11 – PARTICULAR INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS

Injunctions/stays

115. Where opposing parties or proposed parties have been given notice of intention to issue proceedings, or of the issue of such proceedings, it is to be expected by the Court that irreparable steps should not be taken pending the directions of the Court, for example damage to / destruction of hedgerows/trees/ other natural features or damage to / demolition of structures.  Disregard of the foregoing may be taken into account by the Court in the exercise of its discretion in relation to costs irrespective of the result and without prejudice to any other legal remedy for such matters.  Any disputes or potential issues regarding stays and/or undertakings not to carry out works should if possible be addressed by correspondence in the first instance.  However, at any time, if so requested by the applicant and in the interests of case management and in particular avoiding unnecessary and unstructured applications to the Court for a stay, the Court may, if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, and in the absence of agreement to give such notice, and subject to contrary submissions, direct that any developer in respect of any impugned development consent should give 2 weeks’ notice to the applicant of any intention to carry out works pursuant to the consent, for the purposes of enabling any consequential issues to be dealt with by the Court in an orderly manner.  Where the developer has agreed to, or been directed to, give such notice, any application for a stay within the period of notice should be made by the applicant on notice.

116. In cases of urgency, an interim injunction may be granted prior to the formal initiation of proceedings on the moving party filing in the Central Office the grounding affidavit in advance and obtaining an Intended Action Number, save where the office is closed whereby such affidavit may be filed in court, and on that party undertaking to initiate formal proceedings as directed as soon as possible thereafter.  Urgent appointments in the Central Office can be obtained by [email protected].  The moving party should contact the List Registrar to request an urgent listing and provide a draft copy of the application.  Such interim injunction may also be granted after proceedings are initiated but before leave is granted in a case where leave is required.  Otherwise, any application for an interim or interlocutory injunction or stay will ordinarily be dealt with before or at the same time as any other initial business in the proceedings.  Any prohibitory injunction will, unless the Court otherwise orders, be directed to all persons with notice of the order.  Any mandatory injunction (such as rectification) will be directed to a named party or parties and will specify the time within which the mandatory steps concerned are to be carried out.  Parties are responsible for drafting claims for relief in a manner that complies with the foregoing.  If service of an order served with the penal endorsement is to be relied upon, such service (including deemed service) should preferably be effected before the expiry of the period so specified.  If that is not done, the Court may either deem the service sufficient or consider extending the period for such mandatory steps to allow service during the period as so extended.

Costs protection

As to costs protection order applications see O. 103 r. 37 RSC.

117. For the avoidance of doubt, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to provide protective costs orders and costs clarifications prior to the issue of proceedings, at the outset of proceedings or at any time thereafter, the Court may make orders setting out the costs consequences of the issue or proposed issue of proceedings.  Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a party seeking or proposing to seek injunctive relief that is obtainable from both the Circuit Court and the High Court may apply on notice for an order in that regard either by application in respect of intended proceedings or at the outset of, or at any time after, the initiation of the proceedings in the High Court.  Such an order may in particular determine that there are sufficient reasons for proceeding in the High Court as opposed to the Circuit Court, such as a greater likelihood of expedition, so that irrespective of the result of the proceedings, the Court will not make a costs order (including by way of set-off) against the applicant for such relief under s. 351(8)(b) of the 2024 Act or otherwise in respect of the additional costs of proceeding in the High Court as opposed to the Circuit Court and/or will not disallow such additional costs in the event of costs being awarded to such applicant, except in the event of grounds of the type referred to in s. 50B(3) of the 2000 Act.

118. Having regard to O. 103 r. 37(2) RSC, apart from exceptional circumstances such as any urgent stays or injunctions, no further steps will ordinarily be taken in proceedings without the consent of any party seeking costs protection pending the determination of that application.  However, all affected  parties may agree that the carrying out of such steps will be on the basis of a temporary concession as to costs protection in the interim, without prejudice to the prospective position to be determined on hearing of the application.  Opposing parties are strongly encouraged to confirm the application or otherwise of costs protection forthwith on being given notice of the proceedings.  In accordance with O. 103 r. 37(4) RSC, no order as to the costs of seeking costs protection may be made against a party so applying, unless the application is frivolous and vexatious (in which case costs would by default be on an NPE basis).

119. If costs protection has been afforded to a party by order of the Court, such an order shall continue to apply as against parties that did not participate in the application regarding costs protection, or additional parties that are joined to the proceedings or are given notice of the proceedings subsequent to the grant of costs protection.  Such other parties may however apply for an order that costs protection should not apply, but such an order, if granted, shall not have effect retrospectively so as to create any costs liability for any step prior to the date of any order of the Court declaring that costs protection does not apply.  Accordingly the hearing of any application by such other parties will itself be costs-protected pursuant to the original order of the Court affording costs protection.

Modularisation

120. The default position is a unitary trial.  Situations where the Court may order modularisation include the following (apart from para. (c) these by default will not be applicable in a priority procedure, per O. 103 r. 32(7) RSC):

(a) where parties so consent;

(b) to save costs of an issue where a decision-taker concedes such an issue that is sought to be defended by a notice party;

(c) where issues necessary to a decision on matters being modularised are awaiting hearing or decision in appellate courts or the CJEU; and

(d) as a matter of judicial restraint in order to avoid addressing the validity of legislation or other measures of general application until all other issues have been dealt with.

121. Modularisation of issues as to validity or ECHR-compatibility of measures of general application will not apply to issues of transposition unless such issues can be modularised without affecting any issues of conforming interpretation that may arise in the remaining grounds.

122. Any order for modularisation carries with it the implication that a second or subsequent module should be heard proximately to the determination of the previous module, with the parties being under an obligation in that regard to facilitate the earliest convenient hearing.  Thus, where a matter is modularised, a party is not permitted to raise, as an objection to proceeding with a second or subsequent module, or as an issue within such module, any point that could have been raised prior to the decision to modularise (such as requiring clarification or further clarification of costs protection).  Any such points, if raised, will be dealt with by the Court at what it considers to be the appropriate point, normally as part of or after the final module.  A modularised issue will be addressed as a default on the assumption that all non-modularised issues add nothing and that the decision is to be assumed valid by reference to such issues.  For example, where EU points are modularised, any related domestic points are to be dealt with on the basis that EU law adds nothing.  It is generally an abuse of process for a party to advance fresh evidence or argument in a second or subsequent module for the purposes of reopening or casting doubt on the findings of the Court in an earlier module.

123. An order allowing or refusing modularisation may be revisited on the application of any party or of its own motion by the Court as circumstances require.  

Amendment of pleadings

As to amendment of pleadings see O. 103 r. 26 RSC.

124. Following the grant of leave, a party may seek liberty to amend the pleadings in accordance with O. 84 r. 23(2) and O. 103 r. 26 RSC on giving due notice to the other parties.  The application should be grounded on affidavit setting out the explanation for not having made the point in the original pleadings, if this requires evidence, together with such facts as are required to be averred to in order to establish arguable or substantial grounds (as the case may be) for the amended case, if this requires further evidence.

125. In particular and subject to any applicable Rule of Court or legal principle, and without prejudice to the parties’ obligations to plead in accordance with the rules, this Practice Direction and any guidance notes, the Court may permit or direct such amendments to any party’s pleadings as are appropriate to ensure compliance with the requirements of Rules of Court, this Practice Direction or guidance notes (for example, for clarity or to improve formatting or to correct errors) or to facilitate the real issue in dispute being addressed by the Court.  A party will not be entitled by virtue only of such a permission or direction of the Court to make additional substantive amendments to its pleadings without making an application in that regard in accordance with Rules of Court.

126. When a case is admitted to the Court, but pleadings are not in the format prescribed by any relevant substantive statutory provision, including Rule of Court or statutory practice direction, or guidance notes applicable to the Court, the default order will be that the parties have liberty to amend their pleadings but only to the extent (if any) necessary to comply with such requirements.  At the following listing date, the party with carriage of the proceedings should confirm that any non-compliance has been addressed.  A party will not be entitled by virtue only of a direction of the Court as set out above to make additional substantive amendments to its pleadings without leave of the Court.  Where any opposing party objects in a timely manner (normally 14 days from the amended pleading being delivered to the objecting party) to the effect that any specified amendment has gone beyond the terms of such an order, the default order will be that the filed amended pleading be set aside, the applicant file an amended pleading containing only the formatting changes that are not objected to, and that the applicant bring a separate motion seeking the contested change, supported by affidavit containing the necessary explanations for the amendment.

127. If an amended SOG (or SOO) alleges new facts, or contains new pleas that require an evidential explanation, it should be supported by an affidavit verifying the proposed amended statement, explaining the substance and necessity of the amendment and (other than in respect of clarifying or formatting amendments directed by the Court) explaining the failure to include the relevant content in the original SOG or SOO.

128. If the applicant is directed or permitted to file an amended SOG, the applicant should upload and furnish the List Registrar with a version in Word document format.  Where any necessary supporting affidavit is not available at that time, the order may give liberty to file the amended SOG on the basis of the filing of such verifying affidavit as the party undertakes to provide within a period to be specified.  Unless otherwise directed by the Court, any order allowing the filing of an amended SOG will be expressed to be without prejudice to any point the opposing parties might have taken (if on notice) or might take in due course (if ex parte), and in the event of an amendment granted prior to considering a leave application, without prejudice to the issue of amendment being revisited by the Court prior to granting leave should it appear necessary to do so.

129. The heading to amended pleadings should indicate after the necessary formula in O. 103 r. 27 RSC whether the amendment was at leave stage, by consent, formatting change only, or de bene esse, if applicable. 

Cross-examination

130. The normal position in practice is that trials (other than of plenary actions) will take place on affidavit without cross-examination.  In accordance with O. 103 r. 33 RSC, a notice to cross-examine may only be served by agreement or by leave of the Court.  In the absence of agreement, the Court should be advised of any issue in this regard as soon as the issue materialises so that any leave sought to serve notice to cross-examine can be decided upon well in advance of any proposed trial.

131. Oral evidence of a deponent or cross-examination on affidavits will normally only arise if one of the following alternative positions arises:

(a) the affidavit is sworn in plenary proceedings and is admissible at the hearing;

(b) there is a conflict of evidence the resolution of which is necessary to decide the case;

(c) one party wishes to challenge the credibility/reliability of an averment by another party being an averment that it is not in a position to contradict directly (because typically it is within the peculiar knowledge of the deposing party) and the resolution of such challenge is necessary to decide the case;

(d) there is an issue regarding candour/disclosure by opposing parties that the Court considers should properly be explored by cross-examination (normally this will not arise unless the Court’s directions regarding documentary clarification have first been sought and the outcome has not resolved the matter) and the resolution of such challenge is necessary to decide the case; or

(e) the Court of its own motion requests the attendance of a deponent (or in exceptional circumstances another person) to give oral evidence to assist the Court itself.

132. If leave for cross-examination is granted, the default direction will be that any cross-examination will be dealt with as part of a unitary trial prior to oral legal submissions within that trial.  The Court may direct the parties to attempt to agree an issue paper describing the broad headings/issues for cross-examination and the documents to be relied on in cross-examination.  The Court may settle any issue paper so directed, whether the parties reach agreement or not.  Generally, if such an issue paper is directed, the parties can expect to be confined to such issues in cross-examination subject to the Court’s discretion to permit otherwise in the interests of justice.  An application for the taking of oral evidence / cross-examination should give a reasonable time estimate for examination/cross-examination, and any remaining time will be divided equally between both sides for purposes of legal submissions.  Trial participants should aim if possible to complete oral evidence / cross-examination within the time estimate directed for the case, but if this is not possible an application should be made to the Court.  Unless special leave of the Court is obtained, no documents may be put to a witness in oral evidence / cross-examination unless already exhibited in the case.  If the need for oral evidence arises after the fixing of a date under the expedited procedure, that procedure will not necessarily be vacated but the Court’s directions should be sought promptly when the issue arises.

Lawyers ceasing to act

133. Having regard to the right of lawyers to cease to act in proceedings subject to their professional requirements, the Court will endeavour to facilitate early return dates for any motion brought seeking liberty to come off record.  Such an application is not necessary where the solicitor concerned files a notice of discharge of solicitor signed by the party concerned or where a new solicitor files a notice of change of solicitor.

Information in the possession of opposing parties

134. Parties are reminded of the general obligation on opposing parties at the outset of proceedings (and continuing thereafter) to disclose any information relevant to the proceedings to the applicant and the Court including a full account of the decision-making process insofar as relevant to the proceedings, unless such information is otherwise before the Court.

135. Where an applicant considers that opposing parties have not disclosed relevant information and/or provided a full account of the process, the applicant should first correspond requesting specified information in a specified form (for example, discovery, disclosure, particulars, interrogatories, or information by correspondence or evidence on affidavit or by way of production of a deponent for cross-examination) and explaining how the request is relevant to the proper determination of the proceedings.  Where such a request is made and where there is no response or where the applicant is dissatisfied with the response, he or she may apply to the Court by notice of motion grounded on affidavit for an appropriate order pursuant to domestic and/or EU law as appropriate, unless the Court dispenses with the need for a notice of motion due to the urgency of the matter or for other reason.  Such an application to the Court is not to be regarded as precluded or prejudiced by the existence or possibility of applications for information pursuant to the AIE or FOI regimes.

136. If at any stage of the proceedings it appears to the Court itself that the Court would be assisted by further information, it may, of its own motion, request or direct the furnishing of further information/evidence in such form/manner as may be directed, with due regard to the views of the parties and the integrity of any relevant statutory processes in being under the AIE or FOI regimes.

Interference with proceedings

137. Parties are reminded that where any party or non-party engages in any action or utterance that a party complains as being an interference with the proper conduct of the proceedings, an improper disincentive to or penalisation for exercising access to the Court, or is such as to give rise to a perception of improper external influence on the Court, the complaining party may apply by motion for any appropriate relief against such party or non-party.

12 – OPPOSITION AND SUBSEQUENT PAPERS

As to opposition papers see O. 103 r. 28 RSC.

Concessions or amendment of decisions

Concession of order sought

138. Any opposing party may concede the primary or any order sought by the applicant.  A concession as to any particular order (such as a declaration) does not constitute a concession as to any other order (such as an order quashing a decision).  However, any concession of any type by one opposing party does not preclude another opposing party from defending the decision or the proceedings generally either in full or in part.  The Court is not bound by any concession by any party as to relief to be granted, or by the parameters of discretion as pleaded by any party, and must in all cases be itself satisfied that any relief concerned should be granted.

Concession of error without concession of order sought

139. Where an opposing party wishes to concede an error (or possible error) but wishes to contend that the issue was not of such a nature as to warrant an order quashing the decision and/or any relief, that party may so concede (and is encouraged in such a situation to do so as early as possible).  Such a concession does not constitute an admission that any relief (including declaratory relief), or any costs, would flow therefrom unless the opposing party otherwise expressly agrees.

Amendment of decision to correct error or otherwise

140. Where an opposing party (whether it wishes to concede an error (or possible error) and/or declaratory or other relief or not) wishes to amend a decision in respect of a matter that the decision-taker has power to amend, including if applicable by giving further reasons if it has power to do so, that party may do so (and is encouraged in such a situation to do so as early as possible) without being thereby taken as accepting that any relief (including declaratory relief), or any costs, would flow from such a concession.  Where a decision-taker proposes to exercise any power it enjoys to amend a decision under challenge and/or to give further reasons, the Court’s permission to do so is not required (see O. 103 r. 24 RSC).  Notice to the Court is not required unless a stay of proceedings is sought, but providing information to the Court and the other parties as to the steps being or to be taken is encouraged.  Notice to the parties of any actual amendment made is required by O. 103 r. 24(3) RSC.  If any party wishes to adjourn the proceedings or modularise a particular ground while this process is carried out, application should be made to the Court, but if the power is exercised in early course such application would not normally be necessary. 

No-fault disposition of proceedings

141. Subject to the Court and to the right of any other opposing party to object, an opposing party (“the offering opposing party”) may propose a “no-fault order” viz., that the decision be quashed or other order made without admission of error and with no order as to costs.  Where such a proposal is, in the view of the Court, unreasonably refused, and the relief so offered is not ultimately granted by the Court, the Court may order that the costs incurred after the date of refusal be paid by the refusing party under s. 50B(3) of the 2000 Act, other corresponding provision, or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, subject to the NPE costs rule if applicable.  Likewise, where another opposing party (“the objecting opposing party”) objects to a proposal by the offering opposing party, and where such objection was in the view of the Court unreasonably made, and where the objecting opposing party ultimately fails in resisting the relief in question being granted by the Court, the objecting opposing party may be liable for the full costs of the proceedings irrespective of whether the offering opposing party (a) is a public law entity and/or (b) participated in the further proceedings necessitated by the objection and/or (c) resisted the relief in that context.

Statements of opposition

142. SOOs should be dated at the end and should state the names of any legal practitioners who settled them.  SOOs should answer the points of substance and should be so pleaded as to effectively and specifically identify the matters truly at issue between the parties.

Further affidavits following opposition

143. Proliferation of replying and supplemental affidavits is to be avoided.  Any further affidavits from an applicant in response to opposition, or from opposing parties in response to such affidavits, are limited to reply (or exceptionally to additional matters if they were not matters that could have been known with reasonable diligence originally).  Parties should proceed on the basis that any averments going beyond that are likely to be held inadmissible and are likely to be struck out or disregarded.  In particular, an applicant may not under the form of a reply introduce evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could have been a part of his or her case originally.  Unless permitted expressly by the Court for exceptional reasons, parties should proceed on the basis that any affidavit to that effect is likely to be regarded as going beyond what is permitted by the Court, and is likely to be struck out or disregarded.  A similar principle applies mutatis mutandis to averments by opposing parties in a further reply which could with reasonable diligence have been included in their original reply.

13 – FIXING OF DATES

Fixing of dates generally

144. The Court may fix a date either:

(a) on the application of any of the parties, either following an invitation from the Court or on their own initiative, on submission by them of a form (in Word format) setting out necessary information in accordance with guidance notes; or

(b) on its own motion where it considers that appropriate, including in urgent/priority cases in anticipation of the formal initiation of the proceedings or where the matter has not progressed within a reasonable time (having regard to the autonomous duty to provide a hearing within a reasonable time under art. 6 ECHR).

145. By default, the Court will fix a date on the first return date the proceedings on notice (subsequent to the grant of leave if applicable).  Where this does not happen, the Court will by default fix a date in the Monday List following the due making of an application in that regard by any party in accordance with this Practice Direction.  Such an application may be made at any time including before leave is granted (in the case of a matter requiring leave).  The applying party must complete the form prescribed in guidance notes and set out directions demonstrating that the matter will be ready for hearing by the date proposed.  The form should be sent in draft to the other parties by 13:00 on the prior Monday and to the registrar by 13:00 on the Friday prior to the Monday List in question.  If the foregoing consultation has not been afforded the matter will be adjourned at the Registrar’s Callover -stage save in the case of cases subject to the expedited procedure, which will be listed before the Court.

146. The Court will generally decline to fix a date only for strong objective reasons, particularly:

(a) to facilitate ADR;

(b) if and to the extent that an issue in the proceedings is before an appellate court and/or the CJEU;

(c) if there is a separate process that is capable of resolving the issue in substance (for example, a new planning application, a variation of a development plan, or separate proceedings); or

(d) if the proceedings are such that a hearing date is not properly required at that point, for example, the monitoring of compliance with an order where the relevant issues of compliance have yet to crystallise.

147. It is the responsibility of parties and practitioners to check the availability of lawyers or other trial participants prior to the occasion on which a date is sought.  Practitioners should proceed on the basis that dates will not be subsequently changed or vacated on the basis of unavailability of participants.

148. Where any application for a date is to be mentioned to the Court, other than a short motion being dealt with by an individual Judge within the same term concerned, application should be made to the Judge in charge of the List unless otherwise directed. 

149. When fixing the date, the Court shall determine the duration and mode of the hearing.  Where the Court considers that the parties have delayed unduly in progressing the proceedings and/or in applying for a date, the hearing shall normally be limited to a maximum of one court day as determined by the Court save in exceptional circumstances.  Where the pressure of business so requires, the Court may list a number of matters within a limited range of dates (for example, a number of cases to be heard in sequence over a few days).

150. Where proceedings raise a point that is or becomes pending in other proceedings either on appeal or before the CJEU, the parties should notify the Court as soon as possible of the issue (irrespective of whether a date has been fixed for hearing) and of their proposals, for modularisation or otherwise, to avoid cutting across the appellate or European process.  Where such proposals were not made prior to the date being fixed, any party aware of such potential overlap should inform the Court of the matter and make proposals for modularisation as soon as possible after becoming aware of the potential overlap, and in any event not later than at the hearing.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects

151. In this Practice Direction, nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) proceedings means (subject to any guidance note that may be issued from time to time) proceedings regarding:

(a) any renewable energy infrastructure project above the small-scale (small-scale being matters such as solar panels for an individual building);

(b) an SID/SHD/LRD project that appears to the Court to be of such significance in a national context as to warrant certification as an NSIP;

(c) any other infrastructure project that appears to the Court to be of such significance in a national context as to warrant certification as an NSIP ;

(d) any project (such as grid connections or waste water treatment) that facilitates any of the foregoing projects; and

(e) any matter (such as an amendment of permission, EPA licence or other consent) that facilitates any of the foregoing projects.

152. A party to proceedings may apply at any time (including before the grant of leave) to the Judge in charge of the List having notified the other parties to certify that the proceedings are NSIP proceedings.  If such an application is made (which may be by correspondence) the matter will be listed before the Judge in charge of the List on the immediately next convenient date, not necessarily a Monday.  Such an application will normally be dealt with forthwith and in a summary manner upon being made.  Parties should be in a position to advise the Court of suitable dates forthwith on the date of the listing of such an application.

153. If so certified, the following will have effect subject to the resources available to the court and to any contrary order:

(a) any leave application, if not already heard, will be heard on the earliest available date, not necessarily a Monday;

(b) expedited directions will apply if not already applicable;

(c) the hearing date will be within 6 months of the date of filing of the proceedings unless the parties otherwise agree; and

(d) the hearing will not be modularised by default (subject to any points currently before the CJEU/appellate courts).

154. Where a date for hearing has already been fixed prior to such certification and such date is later than 6 months after the initiation of the proceedings, the Court, having heard the parties to the proceedings as so certified, will fix a new date if application is made in that regard, such new date to be within such 6 month period or, if that is impracticable, as soon as practicable thereafter.

155. Where the resources available to the Court so require, compliance with the foregoing may result in an adjustment to hearing dates already fixed for any non-NSIP proceedings, in which case the Court will reschedule such other proceedings as soon as convenient thereafter.  The Court will however endeavour to give due consideration to what appears to it to be the relative urgency of any proceedings concerned before deciding which other proceedings if any need to be rescheduled.  This does not give rise to an entitlement to consultation with the parties in those other proceedings prior to the necessity for rescheduling, but in the event of rescheduling the parties to the other proceedings will be consulted as to a new date. 

156. The foregoing does not affect:

(a) the fact that default expedited directions will continue to apply to all renewable energy (regardless of scale)/ SID/SHD/ LRD/ AIE cases as set out above in this Practice Direction;

(b) the fact that a default expedited hearing (3.5 hours) will apply to all RED III cases (regardless of scale) and cases regarding infrastructure on which REDIII projects depend (per O. 103 r. 32(5)(b) RSC).

14 – PRE-HEARING PAPERS AND HEARING

Witness statements and reports in cases heard with oral evidence

157. The time-limits for service and filing of papers (including any further statements or reports supplementing original statements and reports) in a case heard with oral evidence will by default include the following:

(a) any statement or report on behalf of the moving party, not later than 30 days prior to the date of such trial (if not previously done or required to be done);

(b) any statement or report on behalf of any party supporting the moving party, not later than 25 days prior to the date of such trial (if not previously done or required to be done);

(c) any statement or report on behalf of any respondent decision-taker, not later than 20 days prior to the date of such trial (if not previously done or required to be done); and

(d) any statement or report on behalf of any other opposing party, not later than 15 days prior to the date of such trial (if not previously done or required to be done).

158. Where parties consider that further replies or rejoinders are required, the directions of the Court should be sought in the absence of agreement, but all statements/reports should be delivered at least 3 clear days in advance of the hearing date.  If during the course of the trial, on application by any party, it becomes apparent that any witness other than those notified is necessary, then with the leave of the trial Judge, such witness may be called to give oral evidence, subject to such direction as to prior service of a written statement or, as the case may be, expert report, as the trial Judge may make.

Core book

159. The core book to be submitted electronically for the hearing following close of submissions should be limited to the essential documents and insofar as it contains materials other than pleadings, should be limited to documents already formally exhibited in the proceedings.  Where it becomes apparent at the core book preparation stage that a document that should have been put before the Court was not so exhibited, the parties should endeavour to agree a reasonable and transparent solution and in default of agreement should apply to the Court as soon as practicable.  The core book should contain the following:

(a) the (latest amended) SOG;

(b) any inspector’s report;

(c) any impugned decision;

(d) the order granting leave;

(e) (latest amended) SOOs; and

(f) any other particularly significant document that the parties wish to include in the core book (in that regard if a document is intended to be particularly relied on at the hearing, parties are encouraged to consider including it).

Written legal submissions

As to written legal submissions see O. 103 rr. 30-31 RSC.

160. Written submissions are required from all participating parties for all hearings, whether unitary or modularised, including the hearing of contested interlocutory or consequential applications.  The submissions should be compliant with the format requirements set out in the Order, this Practice Direction, guidance notes, or any order of the Court, such written submissions to be served and uploaded by a date consistent with the Court’s standard directions, unless the Court otherwise directs.

161. All submissions should bear the name of the author(s) and the date of settling at the end of the submission.  Unless otherwise directed, submissions should endeavour to be concise.

162. Unless otherwise directed in a particular case, submissions should set out parenthetical material and citations of authorities and materials in the body of the submission and should not use footnotes (save where otherwise specifically directed or where guidance notes provide otherwise).

163. All written and (if the Court so requests) oral submissions should follow the sequence of clearly dividing domestic law issues, EU law issues and validity issues as set out in relation to core grounds in this Practice Direction, and should address those issues in the order of those headings, unless otherwise directed.  Any party seeking a reference under art. 267 TFEU should so indicate in his or her submissions and the statement of case.  The wording of the questions should be contained in the statement of case.  Where submissions contend that (a) points raised by the other side are not pleaded or (b) points raised by an applicant were not made in the process, full details should be set out in the written submissions (see format for such information in the statement of case).

164. The following provisions of PD HC97 will not apply to the Court:

(a) paragraph 3(c)(v) (word limit);

(b) paragraph 5(g) (limit on numbers of authorities that may be included in the book of authorities); and

(c) paragraph 6 (issue papers).

165. Unless a different word limit is directed by the Court in an individual case:

(a) substantive (non-replying) written submissions will have a limit of 10,000 words; and

(b) replying written submissions and submissions on interlocutory/consequential matters will have a limit of 5,000 words;

166. The word limit does not include reference material that is separately annexed to the submission.  However, factual time-lines should be substantively incorporated as a narrative and not annexed.  Parties are reminded that the word limits are maxima and not minima, and accordingly parties are encouraged to prepare their submissions in a shorter form where possible.

List of authorities

167. The DMP should co-ordinate the preparation of a list of authorities intended to be opened at the hearing.  Each party may include up to approximately 15 unique authorities which it intends to open at the hearing.  The omission of an authority from this list does not preclude it being relied on or opened at the hearing, even if the authority is not in the bench book / Court’s list of authorities (but other parties should be notified as soon as possible of the intention to do so).  Parties should not provide the authorities themselves or books of authorities save as follows.  Authorities do not need to be uploaded to ShareFile or otherwise provided to the Court if they are available at a non-paywalled link that has been provided to the Court by way of the list of authorities.  Only authorities that are not so available should be uploaded to ShareFile.  As regards references to authorities in submissions, if an authority is available at such a link, the authority should preferably be hyperlinked in the written submissions.  Links to any material including caselaw, directives, domestic legislation or otherwise should include a link to courts.ie and may additionally include another version of the material, preferably in html (for example, BAILII), if available.  Citations should include reference to their reported form, if reported, and may additionally include a link to the reported form.  A party is not precluded from relying on an authority referred to in submissions merely because it is not uploaded or included in the list of authorities to be referred to at the hearing.

Statement of case

168. A statement of case tailored to the particular issues before the Court is required for all hearings including (a) each module of a modular trial, (b) any interlocutory hearing and (c) any post-decision consequential hearing such as leave to appeal.  The statement of case should be a Word document which contains an agreed (or where not agreed, setting out the alternative positions on a given point) narrative statement (in plain text, not tables such as chronological columnal arrangements) of the following:

(a) a link to the website of the decision-taker relating to the particular decision and to other decisions that are central to the narrative including any first instance administrative decision;

(b) a link in Google Street View or similar website giving a view of the locus in quo (or alternative links if the parties do not agree), and in the event that no online view of a reasonably contemporaneous nature is available, a party may request the Court to note that the available view is outdated;

(c) details of any previous proceedings between the parties (related to the proceedings or to an issue in the proceedings) and the outcome of any previous potentially relevant judgments in litigation between the parties, giving neutral and other citations in each case;

(d) a list of the parties, their capacity (e.g. applicant, first named respondent) and a summary of relevant information (e.g. landowner);

(e) a full and comprehensive statement of the facts in a chronological narrative setting out all facts that are significant to the route-map to the grounds on which relief is sought and the grounds on which it is opposed – this should be in numbered paragraphs in full sentences and not in a table, staccato bullet points, tabbed form or other bespoke arrangement, and should include a clear statement of the date and content of the recommendation/decision of any first instance decision-taker, elected members, council officials, inspector and final decision-taker;

(f) the procedural history of the matter in a chronological narrative as well as any factual developments following the commencement of the proceedings, to be outlined at the appropriate point of the chronological narrative of the procedural history – this should be in numbered paragraphs in full sentences as with the factual narrative; any party required to incur costs due to significant default by any other party should include the alleged default in the procedural history;

(g) the preliminary issues if any, and a short summary of the parties’ respective positions on these;

(h) a sequentially numbered list of the opposing parties’ views of the applicant’s points under the following headings, with replies by the applicant setting out the narrative text of the submission/pleading relied on to rebut the objection:

(i) points contended to be referenced in submissions/affidavits/ statement of case/ otherwise in the proceedings (excluding pleadings) but not made in the process and not pleaded;

(ii) points contended to have been made in the process, but not pleaded;

(iii) points contended to be referred to narratively/contextually in the pleadings but without any properly formulated legal plea;

(iv) points contended to have been pleaded but not made by the applicant in the process; and

(v) points contended to have been both made in the process and also pleaded;

(i) details of any reliefs or grounds on the pleadings that are not being pursued;

(j) a ground-by-ground or (in matters other than the substantive hearing stage of JR proceedings) issue-by-issue summary of the submissions of each party, giving about 1 or 2 paragraphs per ground/issue to broadly summarise each party’s case – this is intended as a general summary and does not prejudice the pleaded grounds of challenge or opposition, so omission of a point of detail from the summary does not constitute abandonment of such a point;

(k) whether there is any request for a reference to the CJEU, and if so a statement of any proposed question(s) and of the parties’ positions on such questions; and

(l) a statement as to whether there is any stay/injunction/undertaking/agreement in place as to the implementation of the contested decision or other matter concerned.

169. The statement of case is without prejudice to the parties’ pleaded case, evidence, and written and oral submissions.  Parties should provide their input into the statement of case at the same time as their written submissions subject to any further changes being required to finalise the statement of case following all inputs.  A statement of case is required for all applications including leave to appeal, and where the nature of the matter is such that a ground-by-ground treatment does not apply, the statement of case shall be prepared on an issue-by-issue basis.

Issue papers or agreed statements

170. The Court may request or direct the parties to co-operate to prepare draft issue papers or agreed statements of fact, procedural history, legal context or similar documents.  Whether agreed or not, the Court at all times has the right to propose drafts, propose amendments to drafts produced by one or more parties, and ultimately settle such documents in such form as it thinks appropriate subject to any need to resolve a disputed issue of fact or law.  It is to be understood by parties that any proposals by the Court are subject to submissions, are intended to assist in the efficient disposal of proceedings and do not constitute a statement of view on any matter at issue.

Adjournment of hearing dates

171. Where hearing dates have been fixed, parties should proceed on the basis that such dates will not be vacated and cases will not be adjourned save in exceptional circumstances (unless the issue relates to the availability of the Court itself).  Any default by any party in compliance with directions in the run-up to a hearing will normally be addressed by methods other than vacating/adjourning the date (such as costs consequences or by truncating the time for delivery of submissions/authorities/ the statement of case, changing the form of hearing to a priority procedure or reducing the time allocation at the hearing).  Consent of the parties will not be regarded as a sufficient reason for vacating/adjourning a hearing save for substantial objective grounds, which must be of an exceptional nature in a case where a priority procedure applies or the date has been fixed of the Court’s own motion.  Parties should proceed on the basis that any case where a hearing date has been vacated by consent of the parties will not be afforded priority for the fixing of a future date, unless the adjournment was occasioned by force majeure or other exceptional reasons.

172. Where a matter becomes moot prior to the hearing date, the Court should be informed as soon as possible and the default position (given the volume of business in the List) will be that the onus will be on a party contending that the Court should nonetheless determine the matter to demonstrate why this should be so.

173. Where the Court adjourns a hearing date it may make any appropriate costs or other consequential order of a type along the lines applicable to adjournment of an interlocutory listing date.

The hearing

174. A pre-hearing callover will normally be listed on the Monday that is two weeks prior to the week of the hearing (or if the Judge hearing the matter is not sitting on that date, the sitting Monday of such Judge next before then); in the event of non-compliance at that stage, the Court may give directions as necessary.

175. Applicants collectively (and parties supporting them) will have an equal time to the opposing parties (i.e., respondents and notice parties) and parties supporting them collectively.  Division within that is for the parties in the first instance.  For example, for a 2 day hearing, the total time envelope would be 8 hours (2 days x a 4-hour court day) which would be divided into 4 hours for each side.  An example of a possible division might be 3 hours for the applicant’s opening submission, 2 hours for the non-State respondent, 1 hour for the State respondents, 1 hour for a notice party, and 1 hour for the applicant’s reply (which equates to 4 hours on each side in total).  Proportionate time periods would apply for shorter time allocations.  Any preliminary objections or applications at the hearing (including interlocutory applications adjourned to the trial of the action) will come out of, and not be additional to, the relevant parties’ time allocations.

176. It is not necessary to open papers formally, and parties should approach hearings on the basis that papers will be taken as read.  Subject to the interests of justice and submissions in any given case, the Court’s general approach will be to conduct the hearing of the domestic and EU law issues on the assumption for the sake of argument that all relevant legislation and policy documents are valid.  If any challenge is made to a measure of general application, whether legislative or policy document, and where modularisation has been ordered, any grounds of such challenge should normally first be addressed in the main module(s) by first seeking a conforming interpretation.  Where the Court applies a domestic measure of general application on this assumption, that does not in any way prejudice the obligation of the Court to set aside the domestic measure if its application would not give full effect to EU law.  Rather the process of assuming the validity of the measure first will normally achieve the purpose of identifying whether the proceedings can be resolved without getting to that stage.  Hence if a conforming interpretation of a measure produces a result whereby full effect is given to EU law, the question of setting aside the measure does not arise.

177. Parties are reminded that time allocations for oral submissions at any substantive hearing should not be taken to be fully guaranteed and may be reduced to accommodate, for example, unanticipated interruptions, so as to finish by the deadline specified in advance.  Parties should therefore plan to leave some margin for such matters when preparing their oral submissions.  Parties are therefore encouraged to minimise preambular discussions and to lead with their major points in oral submissions, bearing in mind that they Court may request such submissions to follow a given sequence, such as domestic-EU-legislative validity.  The time-limits are maxima and not minima, and accordingly parties are encouraged to complete their oral submissions in a lesser time where possible.

178. It is entirely a matter for the parties as to whether to engage a stenographer for the hearing, subject to the consent or deemed consent of the Court, and parties are not under any obligation to the Court in that regard or any expectation to respond in any way to any preferences of the Court.  The fact that the transcript of the stenographer’s note is shared with the Court if a stenographer is engaged does not give rise to a situation whereby the Court will request or direct the engagement of a stenographer or create any expectation in that regard.

15 – CJEU REFERENCES

CJEU references – guidance as to procedure

179. Where the Court decides in principle to refer a matter to the CJEU, the Court may apply a default procedure (based on Eco Advocacy v. An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 265, [2021] 5 JIC 2704 (Unreported, High Court, 27 May 2021)) as follows.

Stage 1 – prior to the formal judgment for reference

180. Where the Court in an initial judgment sets out proposed questions for the CJEU, the parties (as a default) are to provide short written submissions, simultaneously within 2 weeks, containing:

(a) a list of the provisions of international law/ caselaw (if any) they consider relevant to answering the questions, and an accessible web-address for each;

(b) a list of the provisions of European law/ caselaw they consider relevant to answering the questions together with full citations and an accessible web-address for each case;

(c) a list of the provisions of domestic law/ caselaw they consider relevant to answering the questions and an accessible web-address for each;

(d) a summary of the party’s proposed answer to each question (maximum 200 words per question); and

(e) the party’s views on whether there should be any amici curiae added to the proceedings prior to the reference being made.

181. The applicant(s) should put Ireland and the Attorney General on notice of the intention to refer the matter, if not already a party, in case the State would wish to make a submission at this stage on the basis outlined above.

182. If any one or more amici curiae is to be added, such entities would bear their own costs throughout, in the Irish courts and in the CJEU, and would not have any liability for the costs of any other participant in the proceedings.  Where amici are joined to proceedings they will normally participate in domestic proceedings by written submission but if invited by the CJEU to participate in the oral hearing are at liberty to make oral submissions in that context.  The parties will have liberty to make any enquiries with any suitable entities whether domestic, European or international if and to the extent that they think fit, and have liberty to convey any judgment in unapproved form and any of the papers to any proposed amicus curiae.

183. Prior to the following listing date, the DMP should complete a contact sheet in the form set out in guidance notes and submit it to the Court by upload and email to the List Registrar.  In order to assist the CJEU, the contact sheet should include email addresses for the solicitors to all parties to the proceedings (if represented, if not direct contact emails), whether or not such parties are participating in the reference and whether or not such parties have appeared in the proceedings.  All natural persons who are parties to the proceedings should clearly indicate whether they wish to be named in the CJEU proceedings or any consequent judgment of that Court.  Unless otherwise indicated their names will be anonymised by the CJEU in its judgment.

Stage 2 – after the formal judgment for reference

184. Following any such submissions, the Court will issue the formal judgment for reference which will set out the final text of any questions together with such material drawn from the parties’ submissions as the Court considers appropriate.

185. It is then the responsibility of the DMP to prepare a draft contents page of documents for the CJEU and to agree this with the other parties or apply to the Court in default of agreement.  This should include:

(a) all relevant pleadings/ affidavits/ exhibits/ other documents; and

(b) all relevant judgments/orders in the case including the formal order for reference and the final judgment for reference.

186. This should not include legal submissions or cases/ other authorities, especially where these are already cited in the judgment for reference.

187. Once the contents page is agreed, it is then the responsibility of the DMP to prepare electronic versions for the CJEU as follows:

(a) all files should be in PDF format not exceeding 30 MB; and

(b) the documents should be in four separate PDFs (subject to the size limit):

(i) the judgment for reference – in a single standalone PDF (which should be final but may be unsigned) that preserves the hyperlinks and not as a scanned picture of the signed version;

(ii) the perfected order for reference – in a single standalone PDF;

(iii) the completed contact sheet – in a single standalone PDF; and

(iv) all other papers; which should be bundled together in a single PDF (or more than one if required to comply with the 30 MB file size limit).

188. Once prepared, the PDFs should be sent to the List Registrar by email or file sharing link.  For this purpose parties should not use password protected file transfers; in the alternative a dedicated folder in the case ShareFile can be created.

189. It is the registrar’s responsibility to ensure they have all the following before sending to the Principal Registrar's Office for onward transmission to the CJEU:

(a) judgment of the Court referring the question(s) to the CJEU;
(b) the order of the Court referring the question(s); and
(c) the other agreed papers (as referred to above) to accompany the referral to the CJEU.

190. So as to avoid the necessity to send hard copy material, the Principal Registrar’s Office has set up an account with the CJEU (e-Curia) to accept documents by electronic means.  On receipt of all material from the List Registrar, the Principal Registrar’s Office will formally transmit the reference to the CJEU.  The Principal Registrar's Office will exchange (through e-Curia) all of the above along with the required covering letter.  Once received by the CJEU they then issue a unique case reference number.

Stage 3 – after transmission of the case to the CJEU

191. After the matter is referred, the parties should liaise to ensure that the Court is made aware of relevant correspondence/documents as to the progress of the reference, as those documents are circulated by the CJEU, and should contact the Court to have the matter listed as soon as the CJEU judgment has been delivered.

16 – JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND POST-JUDGMENT APPLICATIONS

Judgments

As to draft directions in judgments see O. 103 r. 35 RSC.

Timely delivery

192. It is an objective of the list that judgments be given within the 2 month period (excluding vacations, etc.) provided for by s. 46 of the Court and Court Officers Act 2002 as amended by s. 55 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, and as implemented by the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002 (Register of Reserved Judgments) Regulations 2005 (S.I. No. 171 of 2005) and the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002 (Register of Reserved Judgments) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I. No. 163 of 2015).

193. Where a party considers that a judgment has been unduly delayed, and without prejudice to procedures for complaint pursuant to the Judicial Council Act 2019 or application pursuant to the Court Proceedings (Delays) Act 2024, any party may (on notice to the other parties) raise the matter with (a) the Judge concerned, (b) the Judge in charge of the List and/or (c) the President of the High Court.  Where the matter is so raised, the options available will be discussed including (a) if the Judge has come to a decision albeit in the absence of a final written judgment, whether this can be communicated with or without reasons, and if the latter whether reasons are required by the parties, (b) if the Judge has not come to a decision, whether any further step by the parties could assist (e.g., focused further written submissions on some identified issue) or (c) if the matter is raised with the Judge in change of the List or the President, whether the issue can be discussed (without identifying the party raising the matter) with the Judge concerned in order to support the early finalisation of the matter, if necessary by affording additional writing time (which may involve cancellation of other scheduled hearings).  If necessary and appropriate, the assignment of the matter to the Judge concerned may be vacated with (in the cases of vacation by the Judge in charge of the List) or without (in the case of vacation by the President) the consent of the Judge concerned and the matter relisted for an early rehearing (which may be on the papers or the DAR/transcript, with due regard to the submissions of the parties) by another Judge. 

Options for the parties as to less formal resolution

194. The parties may agree that at or in advance of the judgment stage, alternative options could be adopted such as the following:

(a) it could be agreed that general verbal reasons only would be given rather than detailed or written reasons;

(b) alternatively the parties could waive the right to reasons altogether and simply be given an outcome following the Court's reading of the papers and submissions (with or without brief oral supplementation); or

(c) alternatively it could be agreed that the Court could give a provisional view on the papers (either verbal or in a short written broad outline, not a draft judgment) which the parties could then be free to displace in a brief oral hearing (the distinction between a provisional view and a draft judgment being that the Court would not have formed any definite conclusions and would be open to counter-argument).

Options for the Court as to proposed terms of judgment

195. Prior to delivery of a formal judgment, the Court may, as a concession and without creating rights or entitlements for any party in that regard, in its discretion do one or more of the following:

(a) issue its provisional findings on an issue-by-issue basis including identifying issues where the Court considers that a decision on such specific matters is unnecessary; or

(b) circulate a draft judgment (which has no formal status and must remain confidential until otherwise ordered).

196. The parties’ responses to the foregoing should be delivered in writing in Word document format by email to the List Registrar and uploaded to ShareFile within 7 days (or such other period as may be specified) and on the basis that the draft is without prejudice to the right of the Court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with whatever content it considers appropriate.  Such responses should not be to reargue the substance (submissions to that effect will be disregarded) but should deal with issues such as whether a formal judgment is required and changes such as typographical errors or other corrections.  The Court may generally or in a particular case specify the type of matters that may arise under this heading.

197. It is then entirely a matter for the Court as to whether to list the matter for mention, or whether to simply give judgment with or without amendment to respond to any such comments or for any other reason that appears appropriate to the Court.  Any judgment may be given without further notice following the expiry of the 7 day period, whether comments are made or not.  That period will not be extended save in exceptional circumstances.  All parties involved are required to positively confirm to the Court the position including if they have no observations on the draft legitimately falling within the specified parameters.  Draft judgments are not public domain materials and, while they can be shared between the lawyers concerned and their clients, they are not intended for publication (indeed given their lack of status it is impracticable to refer to them, even in the context of considering such drafts in other litigation, until the judgment is formally issued) or for any other transmission save for the legitimate purposes of the litigation.  Therefore anyone with information as to the text, content or proposed outcome of any draft is required not to transmit such information to others save solely by way of private transmission for the legitimate purposes of the litigation and subject to a similar restriction on any recipient.  The foregoing should be taken as a direction of the Court to the parties and anyone having notice of the draft judgment with effect from the date of circulation of the draft.

198. Where, in the light of any draft judgment or other indication of proposed conclusions from the Court, the parties consider that a resolution of the matter by ADR may be possible, the Court shall endeavour to facilitate that where appropriate and may adjourn the matter for such further steps as the parties consider desirable without giving any formal judgment pending a decision by the parties as to whether that is necessary.  In the event of an ADR-based resolution the Court shall not deliver a judgment unless the parties so request.  In either case, the confidentiality of a draft judgment will remain in force and it will remain as a document lacking status so may not be circulated or cited for any purpose.

Form of judgment

199. It is always a matter for the Court as to whether to give a decision orally or in writing.  However where reasons are requested they will always be provided in one form or the other.  Where the Court gives judgment orally on all or any part of a matter, it will be taken to reserve the right to decide to give a written version at a later stage, which may supplement the detail of the oral judgment.

200. In the interests of expedition in preparation and delivery of judgments, and given the multiplicity of issues that are in practice raised in proceedings in the Court, the Court will not necessarily decide all issues in the proceedings for the purposes of any given judgment if the Court considers that the matter can properly be disposed of on the basis of one issue or some only of the issues.  Thus where a proposed order is capable of being supported by a decision on one or some (rather than all) grounds, it is always a matter for the Court as to whether to rest the decision on one (or some) grounds (and if so which) and to regard the remaining grounds as obiter and thus as not being grounds requiring to be decided.  A final decision on this may be made in the light of parties’ views on the Court’s provisional conclusions, if provisional conclusions are issued.  Where the Court decides that it is necessary or appropriate to decide more than one issue in given matter, it is always a matter for the Court as to whether to issue a single judgment or to deliver decisions on different aspects separately for such reasons as appear to the Court to be appropriate, for example where one issue is more urgent because it affects other cases and should be clarified prior to a fuller judgment being ready, or where the parties agree that a formal judgment is required on one issue but disagree as to the necessity for such on another issue, in which case the Court may deliver such a judgment on the first issue at least as an initial step.  Where decisions are delivered in a modular or sequential fashion the Court may adopt different modes of delivery for each element, so that the overall decision may be partly written and partly oral/ ex tempore.

201. Reserved judgments will by default be delivered electronically and published on courts.ie, and parties should not attend in court for that purpose unless otherwise ordered.

202. Any post-judgment issue including costs, leave to appeal, or monitoring the implementation of an order, will normally be dealt with by the Judge who dealt with the proceeding (or the relevant module) unless he or she returns the case to the List or requests another Judge to deal with the issue concerned.

203. A judgment will normally include the following consequential directions/orders as a default, which may, if appropriate, be included provisionally and subject to further submission:

(a) if relief is granted, specifying the precise relief (if appropriate by reference to particular paragraphs of the relief claimed in the SOG);

(b) where certain claims are not decided (for example, where challenges to legislation are not reached because the applicant succeeds on administrative law grounds), that there be no order on such claims but without prejudice to make the same or similar claims in any future hypothetical proceedings, including challenging a further decision made following remittal of the matter if applicable (the foregoing shall be the implicit position even if not expressly stated);

(c) if the decision involves the quashing of a grant of permission and the party applying for such permission has already requested remittal of the matter to the decision-taker, that the matter be so remitted (subject to any submission as to the lawfulness, stage or conditions of remittal);

(d) in the event of the proceedings being dismissed, any stay or undertaking be discharged either forthwith or from such date as may be specified subject to possible extension in the event of appeal (the foregoing shall be the implicit position even if not expressly stated);

(e) a date be specified for the hearing of any consequential applications (e.g. leave to appeal if applicable) with the parties to agree timelines for written legal submissions if not directed by the Court;

(f) any provisional costs order required by O. 103 r. 40(4) RSC shall be, and any other consequential direction may be, specified subject to contrary written legal submissions within a specified time;

(g) any unsuccessful application to vary a provisional costs order may be dealt with by way of costs (the foregoing shall be the implicit position even if not expressly stated); and

(h) perfection of the substantive provisions of the order be postponed in the event of any further substantive module or consequential matter remaining to be determined.

204. The Court will, where it views it as appropriate, consider any redactions that may be required and in that regard will either (a) allow the parties a period to suggest redactions to a draft judgment before formal publication or (b) consider forthwith any proposed redactions proposed to the Court following the circulation and/or initial publication of the judgment and may make such redactions without listing the matter.  

Orders

As to directions in orders including final orders see O. 103 rr. 35-36 RSC.

Orders generally

205. Where a party proposes a consent order to the Court it should have ensured that all parties required to be served (either as respondents or notice parties) by this Practice Direction have either consented or have been served with the proceedings and have not appeared or have not objected to the order.

206. Any possible issues regarding errors that may require correction or issues requiring clarification in orders or judgments should be notified by email to the List Registrar as soon as possible after any party becomes aware of such issues.  The Court welcomes any such issues being drawn to its attention as early as possible.

Interlocutory/modular orders

207. Generally, orders making/amending directions will be dealt with by being recorded in writing and/or notifying the Central Office to accept filings, rather than by formal perfected order in the absence of any specific need for such order.  Where a party requests that an interlocutory order be perfected for the purpose of (a) appeal or (b) service endorsed with the penal endorsement, the Court will normally endeavour to facilitate that.  Otherwise the Court may postpone perfection of interlocutory orders (such as directions or amended directions) to a later stage or to the final order.

208. Consistent with O. 103 r. 32(11) RSC, perfection of orders regarding substantive elements of the case will by default be postponed to the final order following completion of remaining modules and/or consequential applications: see O. 103 r. 32(11) RSC.  In particular, any proposed costs order in favour of a costs-protected party will not be perfected until any consequential issues are determined. 

Orders on withdrawal of proceedings

209. For the avoidance of doubt:

(a) the written declaration required by O. 103 r. 36(2) RSC does not apply if any substantive relief (not including costs) is being granted by consent; and

(b) the concept of a benefit for the purposes of s. 588(3)(b) of the 2024 Act is not understood to include a benefit provided under a bona fide settlement of proceedings not brought for an improper purpose.

210. Where an action is being withdrawn/ dismissed/ struck out with no relief (other than costs) being granted/agreed:

(a) the applicant should provide the declaration verified on affidavit; and

(b) if the order is made on foot of a bona fide settlement, the other parties to the settlement should, if requested to do so by the applicant, furnish a letter confirming their agreement with the fact of the bona fide settlement, which the applicant should exhibit in the foregoing affidavit if furnished.

211. Any party that has concerns in relation to either the seeking or offering of a benefit may report such concerns to the Court (and may do so irrespective of any prior confidentiality agreement).

212. A party may not issue a notice of discontinuance in Planning & Environment proceedings.  Any application to discontinue proceedings should be listed before the Court with the appropriate written declaration under O. 103 r. 36(2) RSC on affidavit.

Final orders subject to consequential applications and costs

213. Final orders that are subject to potential consequential applications (beyond costs) will, by default, not be perfected until such time as the Court specifies, e.g. not until the expiry of a period specified by the Court or until the following mention date on confirmation that there are no further applications.  Where such issues arise e.g. regarding remittal, the form of the order, leave to appeal or a stay, the order will not be perfected (as a default) until the determination of such issues.  Parties should correspond inter se and make reasonable efforts to agree the terms of any appropriate consequential orders, e.g., the point in time to which the matter should be remitted, if that is proposed.  Parties should submit the text of any agreed order to the Court in advance of the next mention date, or in default of agreement should correspond with the Court indicating the precise orders they are seeking.

214. In the event of a contest on consequential issues, the parties will, as a default, have one week each for written submissions with a view to having a consequential hearing as soon as possible to enable the perfection of the final order.

Final orders subject to costs only

215. Final orders not subject to any further application or subject to costs only (for example, where there is no leave to appeal procedure and no consequential applications, where consequential applications have been dealt with, or where leave to appeal applies and has been refused) will by default be perfected immediately.

216. Any costs order will be perfected separately when made.

Costs

As to costs see O. 103 rr. 37 to 41 RSC.

217. Where the Court makes an award of interim/interlocutory costs (in derogation from the default of not doing so as provided by O. 103 r. 38 RSC), it may provide that adjudication of such costs will be stayed pending the final determination of the proceedings in order to obviate a situation whereby the costs-benefiting party’s file would be open to inspection by the costs-paying party.

218. In deciding on costs the Court may, subject to, and where appropriate in the exercise of, any relevant statutory provision including s. 50B(3) of the 2000 Act, take into account matters such as:

(a) any action or utterance that the Court considers to have been an interference with the proper conduct of the proceedings, an improper disincentive to or penalisation for exercising access to the Court, or is such as to give rise to a perception of improper external influence on the Court; or

(b) any default or delay on the part of any party and/or any non-compliance with applicable legal provisions or procedures including Rules of Court, this Practice Direction or the orders/directions of the Court.

219. Where costs are ordered up to a particular date, the costs of legal costs adjudication are not normally deemed to be included in such order unless expressly provided for by the order.  Therefore where the Court intends to include such costs in any order, it may make an express order that, subject to s. 158 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, such costs will include an order for the costs of legal costs adjudication.

220. In the event that there is a dispute as to costs in a given case, where the Court considers it appropriate it may direct that prior to the provisional indication, making or finalisation of the costs order, a Scott schedule be prepared by the parties to identify positions on issues in dispute.

221. In the light of EU law on costs protection, where costs are awarded against a costs-protected applicant due to for example the conduct of the proceedings being frivolous or vexatious, the costs shall be awarded on an NPE basis only, and the determination of what constitutes NPE costs shall be individual to the particular applicant having regard to his or her means, which the Court will be required to determine.  For the avoidance of doubt, the costs incurred in determining such means or otherwise in making any order as to NPE costs will themselves be subject to the NPE costs rule.

17 –INTERPRETATION

222. In this Practice Direction, the following terms have the following meanings save where the context otherwise requires:

(a) “2000 Act” means the Planning and Development Act 2000 (to the extent that Act is in force);

(b) “2024 Act” means the Planning and Development Act 2024 (to the extent that Act is in force);

(c) “Aarhus Convention” means the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus on 25 June 1998;

(d) “ADR” means alternative dispute resolution;

(e) “AIE” means access to information on the environment;

(f) “applicant” includes any moving party;

(g) “CJEU” means Court of Justice of the European Union;

(h) “consent” of the parties includes a situation where parties do not object/are neutral to the adjournment/order in question;

(i) “costs protection order” means an order, whether made by reference to section 50B of the 2000 Act, section 3 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, Chapter 2 of Part 9 of the 2024 Act, the principles of European Union law, or otherwise, declaring prospectively that by virtue of the application of a specified rule of law or legal provision to the proceedings, no order for costs will be made against the applicant or other particular party (the “costs-protected party”), irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings, save in circumstances set out in section 50B(3) of the 2000 Act, section 3(3) of the 2011 Act or section 293(3) of the 2024 Act, and that if such circumstances apply, no order for prohibitively expensive costs will be made against the costs-protected party;

(j) “CSSO” means the Chief State Solicitor’s Office;

(k) “DMP” means document management party, being the party with overall responsibility to ensure that the papers are in order on the ShareFile folder;

(l) “ECHR” means the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms done at Rome on the 4th day of November, 1950, and referred to in section 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 as the “Convention”;

(m) “environment” as the meaning set out in the Order;

(n) “FOI” means freedom of information;

(o) “guidance notes” means procedural documents issued by the Judge in charge of the List to assist with the practical implementation of the Practice Direction, including templates, time-lines, and procedural clarifications, published on courts.ie.;

(p) “Judge in charge of the Planning & Environment List” means the Judge for the time being assigned by the President of the High Court to carry out the functions of Judge in charge of the Planning & Environment List, and the Judge in charge of the Planning & Environment List may direct that specified functions of that Judge be carried out in a particular case by another Judge;

(q) “Judge” means any Judge of the High Court, including the Judge in charge of the Planning & Environment List, assigned for the time being by the President of the High Court to hear and determine proceedings, or any application in relation to proceedings, entered in the Planning & Environment List (and if no such Judge is available at a given time, including in vacation periods, means such Judge of the High Court as may be assigned to deal with the matter);

(r) “List Registrar” means the registrar, for the time being assigned by the Principal Registrar of the High Court to carry out the functions of List Registrar conferred by the Order;

(s) “LRD” means large-scale residential development;

(t) “measures of general application” has the meaning assigned by the Order;

(u) “NSIP” means nationally significant infrastructure project as defined by this Practice Direction;

(v) “opposing party” means respondent or notice party opposing an application;

(w) “parties” in the context of any proposed step by consent does not include parties not taking an active part in either the proceedings as a whole or the particular module of it being dealt with by the Court at the given time;

(x) “party”, without prejudice to Order 125, includes any member, director, officer, servant or agent of a party or other persons that can reasonably be seen as acting in concert with any such person;

(y) “Planning & Environment List” means the list in which proceedings have been entered in accordance with O. 103 rr. 19 or 20;

(z) “Planning & Environment proceedings” has the meaning set out in the Order;

(aa) “RSC” means Rules of the Superior Courts;

(bb) “ShareFile” is the Court’s online platform for the exchange and sharing of documents; 

(cc) “SHD” means strategic housing development;

(dd) “SID” means strategic infrastructure development;

(ee) “SLAPP” means Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation;

(ff) “SOG” means statement of grounds, viz. the statement required by O. 103 r. 14(1) RSC;

(gg) “SOO” means statement of opposition, viz. the statement required by O. 103 r. 28 RSC;

(hh) “the Court”/ “the List” means the Planning & Environment Court;

(ii) “the Monday List” means the Court’s schedule of short matters which is held on Mondays, the main List is currently every other Monday within a Court Term;

(jj) “the Order” means Order 103 of the Rules of the Superior Courts; and

(kk) “VLFD” means virtual List to Fix Dates, which is a virtual list of no specific date for administrative purposes only, with no Court sitting.

Signed:
David Barniville
President of the High Court.
Dated:   1 April 2026