. In contesting the validity of the decision of An Bord Pleanála, Save Our Birds are correct to institute judicial review proceedings, which are heard in the High Court. I will now explore the nature of the judicial review procedure which will apply to Save Our Birds in this case and how it differs from an appeals process.
The nature of a judicial review procedure differs from an appeal in that, as stated in O’Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1. I.R. 39.; “Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made”.[1] In a judicial review procedure, what is essentially being questioned is whether the body, in this case An Bord Pleanála, acted within its powers (intra vires) or outside its powers (ultra vires), in other words questioning
…show more content…
[8]. These procedural rules include a time limit for application for judicial review from the date of the planning decision itself of eight weeks [9], compared to four weeks for an appeal [10]. The applicant must notify the decision-maker involved (An Bord Pleanála), inter partes, rather than ex parte. The requirement for the application to be inter partes was reviewed in September 2010, however, leaving it up to the judge’s discretion, upon hearing the ex parte application, as to whether the decision-maker must be notified [9]. In an appeals process involving a third party, a copy of the appeal will be sent to the applicant [10.] The High Court applies higher thresholds when considering allowance for leave in statutory judicial review, ‘substantial grounds’ rather than an ‘arguable case’ is required. To prevent repetition or wasting time, the High Court can also decide to take the leave application and substantive judicial review hearing at once.