Key Contacts: Alice Whittaker – Partner | Leonora Mullett – Partner | Alison Hardiman – Consultant | Rachel Minch – Partner | Margaret O’Leary – Senior Associate | David Wacks – Associate | Lee Boorman – Associate |
The first Supreme Court decision of 2026 considers the requirement of public authorities to comply with obligations imposed under statute, and whether exceptional circumstances permit deviation from same. Leonora Mullett and David Wacks of our Planning and Environmental team discuss this judgment and its potential impacts.
Background:
Under section 19(1)(c) the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended (the “2000 Act”), there was a requirement for a planning authority to send and publish a notice of a proposal to make or amend a Local Area Plan (“LAP”) at least every six (6) years after the making of the previous LAP.
Here, there was no dispute that Meath County Council (the “Council”) had failed to commence the statutory process for making a LAP for the Laytown – Bettystown – Mornington – Donacarney (“East Meath”) area within the statutory period, with the previous LAP 2014-2020 having been adopted in 2014.
Protect East Meath Limited (“PEM”), an environmental non-profit organisation, corresponded with the Council in Autumn 2023 requesting it to commence that process. The Council’s position was that it was prioritising the LAP process for larger settlements and it cited resource constraints. PEM noted in November 2023 that there was no commitment by the Council to making a new LAP for East Meath, and there is no statutory provision stating this function is contingent upon the availability of resources.
PEM initiated judicial review (“JR”) proceedings in June 2024, and some weeks later the Council indicated an intention to concede, and consent to a declaration that it had breached its statutory obligations. PEM did not accept this proposal and sought an order of mandamus which would compel the Council to prepare a LAP.
High Court JR Proceedings:
The Council argued that certain sections of the Planning and Development Act, 2024 (the “2024 Act”) governing the adoption of LAPs were due to come into effect and, it would be a poor use of resources to prepare a LAP before then, as any such LAP would be extremely short lived. The trial judge rejected this and found the Council must comply with the law as it is, and not as it may be.
In arguing against an order for mandamus the Council relied on exceptional resourcing difficulties and the loss of experienced staff. PEM on the other hand, suggested the Council had applied its resources to non-statutory obligations at the expense of its statutory obligations. The High Court concluded that the Council was in breach of its statutory duty but accepted that there were exceptional circumstances relating to resourcing and that it was not minded to directing the Council as to how it should allocate scarce resources. The Court declined to make an order of mandamus, a discretionary remedy, but granted a declaration instead. In so doing the Court considered the somewhat theoretical prejudice to PEM in refusing the order for mandamus in comparison to the impact which the making of such an order would have on the Council.
Supreme Court Appeal
In his judgment, Mr Justice Wolfe noted the obligation for local authorities to obey the law is clearly prescribed by Article 28A.2 of the Constitution and that there is a strong imperative on them to discharge their functions in accordance with the law.
The Court rejected the Council’s justification for non-compliance in so far as it relied on the anticipated commencement of relevant provisions of the 2024 Act.
Regarding resources, the Court noted that the Council had not asserted that it could not comply with an order for mandamus and noted that since the High Court judgment the Council had tendered for additional resources. The Court did not accept that the circumstances were exceptional, nor that compliance with the statutory duty was impossible, and found:
“I do not overlook the fact that an order of this kind may well to some extent disrupt the scheme of priorities which the Council has set for itself, whereby it started with large towns and settlements which were deemed to be the most pressing. Yet these arrangements do not, as such, have any statutory standing: the task of the Council as determined by the Oireachtas is to prepare an LAP for the entirety of its functional area…”
Mr Justice Collins held that a plea of lack of resources on the part of the public body concerned will not necessarily be given decisive weight, noting the Council was in long term default in respect of the statutory duty, which was expressed in clear and unqualified terms. The judge agreed with Mr Justice Woulfe that it would in principle be appropriate to make an order of mandamus and that the High Court erred in not doing so.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding the Council was not excused from performing its functions and complying with its statutory obligations as required by Article 28A(2) of the Constitution.
Developments since the Supreme Court Hearing:
As of 31 December 2025, section 19 of the 2000 Act has been repealed by the Planning and Development Act 2024 (Commencement) (No. 5) Order 2025 (S.I. No. 633 of 2025) and in light of this, the Court invited the parties to make submissions on the orders to be made.
Key Takeaways:
- Failure by a public body to comply with their statutory obligations can be excused only in cases of ‘impossibility’ or some other wholly exceptional circumstances. Expect to see an increase in JR challenges seeking orders of mandamus against planning authorities . It will be very difficult to succeed in a defence based on a lack of resources.
- Public authorities must act in accordance with the law as it stands and are not entitled to justify non-compliance with statutory duties by reliance on anticipated legislative change.
- The priorities set by a public authority which are non-statutory, comprise a choice as to how it will use its resources and cannot be relied upon by it to justify non-compliance with its statutory obligations.
See the judgment here: Protect East Meath Limited v Meath County Council [2026] IESC 1.
For further information or advice contact a member of our Planning and Environmental team below.
