Tighe -v- Burke trading as McCartan and Burke solicitors. Neutral citation (2010) IEHC 280. High Court. Judgment was delivered on July 16th, 2010, by Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns.
Judgment
The solicitor Joseph Burke was not negligent in dealing with judicial review proceedings brought by the plaintiff, Joseph Tighe, against Kildare County Council in relation to a planning application.
Background
The plaintiff, Mr Tighe, was a lay litigant who brought a negligence claim against his former solicitor, Mr Burke, arising out of his application for planning permission for the development of a building in Newtown, Enfield, Co Kildare, in 2002.
In February 2003, the council stated that it required new newspaper notices. The plaintiff came to the view that a default permission under the 2000 Planning Act had come into being on March 18th, 2003, and instructed his then solicitors, Beauchamps, to institute judicial review proceedings.
In March 2004, he changed his solicitor to the defendant. Michael Collins SC had been retained by Beauchamps on the plaintiff’s behalf and continued to be briefed by Mr Burke.
The plaintiff alleged at a meeting with him and Mr Burke that an official in Kildare County Council had sought a bribe to facilitate the granting of the planning application.
Mr Tighe was advised by Mr Collins and Mr Burke to seek to deal with this allegation, which could not be proved, either by means of a complaint to the council or through the Mahon tribunal, rather than make it a part of the judicial review application.
One of Mr Tighe’s complaints against Mr Burke was that he “did nothing” about this allegation.
Mr Justice Kearns said he found this allegation to be entirely groundless.
Mr Tighe became aware that James Connolly SC was the author of a study of an aspect of planning law he considered relevant to his case, and he had a consultation with him.
He made two allegations arising out of this: that Mr Burke had sent Mr Connolly’s brief to the solicitors for Kildare County Council and that a covering letter from Mr Connolly outlining his apprehension that the case might fail was never sent to him by Mr Burke.
Mr Burke vehemently denied both allegations.
There were also issues concerning seeking discovery of documents from Kildare County Council, which were eventually furnished by the council in December 2004.
Towards the end of 2005, it became necessary to file the critical affidavits for the judicial review.
These were prepared by junior counsel and by the plaintiff himself. He claimed they were not delivered to the other side, which was strenuously denied by the defendant.
The hearing date was fixed for January 17th, 2006.
As the date approached, it became clear that neither Mr Collins nor Mr Connolly would be available, and Eamonn Gilligan SC was briefed.
At a consultation on January 13th he indicated to the plaintiff he did not think the chances of winning the case were better than 20 per cent.
On the same date, replying affidavits were filed by Kildare County Council.
Mr Tighe’s consultant engineer indicated to the plaintiff that he had nothing to add in response to these affidavits.
The plaintiff withdrew his case on foot of the advice given by Mr Gilligan.
He then took a complaint of negligence against his solicitor, alleging that he had failed to obtain his planning file from the council; that he did nothing about the alleged seeking of a bribe by a council official; that he failed to have his case ready for trial; that he had wrongly sent the brief intended for Mr Connolly to the solicitors for Kildare County Council; that he had wrongly advised him to withdraw the planning application, and that he was guilty of undue delay relating to discovery.
Mr Burke gave evidence that Beauchamps had been very negative about the likely outcome of the case when he took it over.
Kildare County Council contended that he acknowledged that he had been somewhat lacking in formulating questions raised by counsel, and in clarifying whether discovery had been complete, but said he believed he had progressed matters in an efficient and professional manner.
Decision
Mr Justice Kearns said he found the plaintiff to be a person “who was totally obsessed with every detail of his dealings with the defendant, Kildare County Council and the various counsel who had advised in this case . . .
“In many respects his replies to questions in cross-examination were evasive, argumentative and off point.”
He said as the case progressed, he found it abundantly clear that all affidavits brought into being on the plaintiff’s behalf had been furnished to the other side.
He rejected any complaint that Mr Burke had failed to take up any planning files from the council, pointing out that the plaintiff was able to do so himself, and had done so.
While there was some delay about the preparation of discovery and confirmation that it was complete, this did not amount in law to negligence or anything close to it.
He found that Mr Burke behaved with complete propriety in relation to the advice given to Mr Tighe before the hearing began, and rejected all the complaints made by the plaintiff.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label planning law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning law. Show all posts
Monday, 8 November 2010
Monday, 12 January 2009
Contract based on undermining planning code cannot be enforced
Kelly -v- Simpson: High Court. Judgment delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on December 1st, 2008
Judgment
A contract based on a price that would not have been achieved but for representations designed to undermine the planning code should not be enforced.
Background
The plaintiff, Vincent Kelly, was seeking the specific performance of a contract by the defendant to buy land near Schull, Co Cork.
Mr Justice Charleton said that the fundamental ingredients in a contract for the sale of land were that the parties be identified as vendor and purchaser, the land be identified with substantial precision and that the price be agreed.
Normally the motivation for any person selling or buying land is irrelevant, but where the specific performance of a contract is concerned it is crucial, and here he was being asked to exercise the equitable jurisdiction of the court to compel the defendant to purchase the land at the price agreed.
The property was about 2.5 acres above the town of Schull on which there was an existing bungalow and an old stone ruin. It overlooked the town of Schull and the islands of Sherkin and Oileán Chléire. Mr Kelly said he bought it in December 2006, through local auctioneer Martin Swanton, with the intention of selling it as a development site.
The purchaser, Mr Simpson, was attracted by its development potential, and Mr Swanton, who was representing Mr Kelly during the sale, presented it to him as capable of development by demolishing the existing bungalow and replacing it with an "executive residence" and of fitting two more houses on it.
In May 2007 Mr Swanton approached Mr Simpson and told him the property was for sale for €1.5 million.
Mr Simpson agreed to buy it, and signed a form registering his interest, but did not pay the €150,000 deposit.
An architect's report drawn up for Mr Simpson stated that the development plan for the area Planning legislation does not exist as a fig leaf that can be treated with disregard by anyone sought to focus development in towns while providing for "the genuine needs of locals wishing to live in the rural area in which they were bought up." The report also indicated that the site was in a scenic amenity zone.
In relation to ruinous dwellings it stated that the development of such buildings would not be prevented in "appropriate cases". The report considered one additional dwelling might be permitted on the site.
Contracts were exchanged, but not signed, as there were a number of postponements of the closing date. A completion notice was served on January 9th and a further one on February 26th 2008.
Mr Justice Charleton said he had to consider how the price of €300,000 per half-acre for land in a scenic part of rural Ireland came about. In uncontested evidence Mr Swanton had told Mr Simpson that the local authority planner for the area had said she would allow three houses on the site.
Mr Swanton's proposal for the development of the site was to replace the roof on the ruin in order to make it a redevelopment building in the eyes of a planner; to redevelop the existing dwelling as an "executive residence"; and to apply for planning for a residence in a part of the site covered by trees and scrub in the name of a local person claiming a housing need, whom he would provide. He reasoned that the first would cost approximately €250,000 to develop and would yield approximately €1 million; the second would cost approximately €450,000 to develop and would yield approximately €1.8 million and the third would cost about €300,000 to develop, but would take approximately five years to sell because of the planning restrictions which required the involvement of a local person.
"There is no doubt that the selling agent on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Swanton, was very well aware from the first meeting with the defendant as potential purchaser of the planning restrictions in this area," Mr Justice Charleton said.
"The price at this high monetary level was achieved through inducing the defendant to partially transform an old ruin . . . with the intention of making it appear to the planning authorities that it was a substantial roofed and ruined, though uninhabited, dwelling."
Mr Justice Charleton also referred to an exchange of e-mails between Mr Swanton and Mr Simpson in which the former said he thought he had found a local for the adjoining site.
Decision
Mr Justice Charleton stated that the planning code existed for the purpose of ensuring that one of our most valuable economic resources, the Irish countryside, should be maintained. Where the Oireachtas has formulated a legislative policy on planning, and local government had exercised devolved powers to set out a county plan on how the countryside is to be developed, the courts are bound to respect it.
"Planning legislation does not exist as a fig leaf that can be treated with disregard by anyone," he said. "If approaches to the planning process are not honest, then it is fundamentally undermined. Such attitudes are destructive of the rule of law."
He said the price was essential to the formulation of any valid contract for the sale of land. "I have no doubt that the price in this instance would never have been achieved by the plaintiff, through his agent, had the defendant not been induced to consider it as being more valuable than it in fact was by specific representations designed to undermine the planning code" he said.He refused the court's aid to enforce the contract.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
Gavin Ralston SC and Joanna Kelleher BL, instructed by Séamus Hickey of Hickey Fitzgerald, for the applicant; Justin Dillon SC and Hugh O'Flaherty BL, instructed by Gary Kingston of Kingston and Co, for the respondent.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Judgment
A contract based on a price that would not have been achieved but for representations designed to undermine the planning code should not be enforced.
Background
The plaintiff, Vincent Kelly, was seeking the specific performance of a contract by the defendant to buy land near Schull, Co Cork.
Mr Justice Charleton said that the fundamental ingredients in a contract for the sale of land were that the parties be identified as vendor and purchaser, the land be identified with substantial precision and that the price be agreed.
Normally the motivation for any person selling or buying land is irrelevant, but where the specific performance of a contract is concerned it is crucial, and here he was being asked to exercise the equitable jurisdiction of the court to compel the defendant to purchase the land at the price agreed.
The property was about 2.5 acres above the town of Schull on which there was an existing bungalow and an old stone ruin. It overlooked the town of Schull and the islands of Sherkin and Oileán Chléire. Mr Kelly said he bought it in December 2006, through local auctioneer Martin Swanton, with the intention of selling it as a development site.
The purchaser, Mr Simpson, was attracted by its development potential, and Mr Swanton, who was representing Mr Kelly during the sale, presented it to him as capable of development by demolishing the existing bungalow and replacing it with an "executive residence" and of fitting two more houses on it.
In May 2007 Mr Swanton approached Mr Simpson and told him the property was for sale for €1.5 million.
Mr Simpson agreed to buy it, and signed a form registering his interest, but did not pay the €150,000 deposit.
An architect's report drawn up for Mr Simpson stated that the development plan for the area Planning legislation does not exist as a fig leaf that can be treated with disregard by anyone sought to focus development in towns while providing for "the genuine needs of locals wishing to live in the rural area in which they were bought up." The report also indicated that the site was in a scenic amenity zone.
In relation to ruinous dwellings it stated that the development of such buildings would not be prevented in "appropriate cases". The report considered one additional dwelling might be permitted on the site.
Contracts were exchanged, but not signed, as there were a number of postponements of the closing date. A completion notice was served on January 9th and a further one on February 26th 2008.
Mr Justice Charleton said he had to consider how the price of €300,000 per half-acre for land in a scenic part of rural Ireland came about. In uncontested evidence Mr Swanton had told Mr Simpson that the local authority planner for the area had said she would allow three houses on the site.
Mr Swanton's proposal for the development of the site was to replace the roof on the ruin in order to make it a redevelopment building in the eyes of a planner; to redevelop the existing dwelling as an "executive residence"; and to apply for planning for a residence in a part of the site covered by trees and scrub in the name of a local person claiming a housing need, whom he would provide. He reasoned that the first would cost approximately €250,000 to develop and would yield approximately €1 million; the second would cost approximately €450,000 to develop and would yield approximately €1.8 million and the third would cost about €300,000 to develop, but would take approximately five years to sell because of the planning restrictions which required the involvement of a local person.
"There is no doubt that the selling agent on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Swanton, was very well aware from the first meeting with the defendant as potential purchaser of the planning restrictions in this area," Mr Justice Charleton said.
"The price at this high monetary level was achieved through inducing the defendant to partially transform an old ruin . . . with the intention of making it appear to the planning authorities that it was a substantial roofed and ruined, though uninhabited, dwelling."
Mr Justice Charleton also referred to an exchange of e-mails between Mr Swanton and Mr Simpson in which the former said he thought he had found a local for the adjoining site.
Decision
Mr Justice Charleton stated that the planning code existed for the purpose of ensuring that one of our most valuable economic resources, the Irish countryside, should be maintained. Where the Oireachtas has formulated a legislative policy on planning, and local government had exercised devolved powers to set out a county plan on how the countryside is to be developed, the courts are bound to respect it.
"Planning legislation does not exist as a fig leaf that can be treated with disregard by anyone," he said. "If approaches to the planning process are not honest, then it is fundamentally undermined. Such attitudes are destructive of the rule of law."
He said the price was essential to the formulation of any valid contract for the sale of land. "I have no doubt that the price in this instance would never have been achieved by the plaintiff, through his agent, had the defendant not been induced to consider it as being more valuable than it in fact was by specific representations designed to undermine the planning code" he said.He refused the court's aid to enforce the contract.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
Gavin Ralston SC and Joanna Kelleher BL, instructed by Séamus Hickey of Hickey Fitzgerald, for the applicant; Justin Dillon SC and Hugh O'Flaherty BL, instructed by Gary Kingston of Kingston and Co, for the respondent.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Councillors face footing bill in rezoning case
A GROUP of politicians will have to pay for their local authority’s costly legal defence because they voted for an “unreasonable” planning decision currently before the High Court.
Thirteen members of South Dublin County Council were told by county management to back down and revoke a controversial rezoning or future case costs will be theirs.
And, in an unprecedented move, management also informed the councillors they will be billed for the costs already accrued.
This is because the councillors defied legal advice offered by the local authority when they granted a lucrative rezoning concession to developer Jim Mansfield.
Today the council is expected to drop its opposition to the court case. Afterwards it will battle over the bill.
Citing section 112 of the 2001 local government act, management believes the local authority does not have to take financial responsibility for a decision it opposed.
Last May the group ignored pleas by county manager Joe Horan and voted to rezone a boutique golf village in Citywest, making it a local shopping centre.
Six weeks later the owner of the nearby district shopping centre on Fortunestown Lane, Place Investments, launched a High Court challenge. It said a similar development on the same road would affect its potential.
In a letter provided to the May council meeting, senior counsel John Traynor warned that Place Investments had a strong case.
“I believe that... it would be highly desirable for elected members to be advised that, without strong compelling reasons... a decision to adopt the variation would be at extreme risk of being quashed,” he said.
Seven councillors voted against the plan, including Tony McDermott of the Green Party, Socialist Mick Murphy and five members of the Labour Party bloc.
Since December 13 affected councillors have been involved in almost daily briefings. In their defence the elected members said their decision to rezone was based on the need to generate employment. They will attempt to avoid responsibility for the bill because they did not have appropriate legal advice during the council meeting.
Neither the council or the councillors are able to comment until the case is resolved.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Thirteen members of South Dublin County Council were told by county management to back down and revoke a controversial rezoning or future case costs will be theirs.
And, in an unprecedented move, management also informed the councillors they will be billed for the costs already accrued.
This is because the councillors defied legal advice offered by the local authority when they granted a lucrative rezoning concession to developer Jim Mansfield.
Today the council is expected to drop its opposition to the court case. Afterwards it will battle over the bill.
Citing section 112 of the 2001 local government act, management believes the local authority does not have to take financial responsibility for a decision it opposed.
Last May the group ignored pleas by county manager Joe Horan and voted to rezone a boutique golf village in Citywest, making it a local shopping centre.
Six weeks later the owner of the nearby district shopping centre on Fortunestown Lane, Place Investments, launched a High Court challenge. It said a similar development on the same road would affect its potential.
In a letter provided to the May council meeting, senior counsel John Traynor warned that Place Investments had a strong case.
“I believe that... it would be highly desirable for elected members to be advised that, without strong compelling reasons... a decision to adopt the variation would be at extreme risk of being quashed,” he said.
Seven councillors voted against the plan, including Tony McDermott of the Green Party, Socialist Mick Murphy and five members of the Labour Party bloc.
Since December 13 affected councillors have been involved in almost daily briefings. In their defence the elected members said their decision to rezone was based on the need to generate employment. They will attempt to avoid responsibility for the bill because they did not have appropriate legal advice during the council meeting.
Neither the council or the councillors are able to comment until the case is resolved.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Chairman John O'Connor faces barristers after comments about oral hearing histrionics
Last week, on release of the An Bord Pleanála Annual Report, Chairman of the Board, John O'Connor took the opportunity to criticise lawyers, stating: "There is concern that some lawyers participating in hearings are engaging in courtroom histrionics which may be good for the odd headline but have no place in a planning hearing".
Attending a planning law conference on Saturday, Mr O'Connor again made these criticisms.
Criticism of Mr O'Connor's position was voiced by a number of barristers; however, the criticism reached a high point with a speech by Mr Garrett Simons, S.C whose 5 minute review of Mr O'Connor's comments was both pointed and funny, calling Mr O'Connor both the "elephant in the room" and "Sarah Palin".
Mr O'Connor responded at the end of the conference by clarifying his comments, stating that oral hearings should be conducted as per the intention of the Planning Acts.
It is clear that Mr O'Connor touched a nerve and upset lawyers, who, as one might expect, reacted with vigour, but it is equally clear that he is capable of weathering such histrionics.
www.buckplanning.ie
Attending a planning law conference on Saturday, Mr O'Connor again made these criticisms.
Criticism of Mr O'Connor's position was voiced by a number of barristers; however, the criticism reached a high point with a speech by Mr Garrett Simons, S.C whose 5 minute review of Mr O'Connor's comments was both pointed and funny, calling Mr O'Connor both the "elephant in the room" and "Sarah Palin".
Mr O'Connor responded at the end of the conference by clarifying his comments, stating that oral hearings should be conducted as per the intention of the Planning Acts.
It is clear that Mr O'Connor touched a nerve and upset lawyers, who, as one might expect, reacted with vigour, but it is equally clear that he is capable of weathering such histrionics.
www.buckplanning.ie
Sunday, 14 January 2007
Planning Law Issues in Conveyancing Transactions
This course is being run by the Law Society of Ireland on 24/01/2007, 3pm to 5pm at the Hodson Bay Hotel, Athlone and costs €110 (see: http://www.lawsociety.ie/). The topics to be covered are:
The object of this seminar is to consider the planning law issues which regularly impact on conveyancing transactions and to review recent developments. The overall emphasis will be on practicality and the seminar will address the problems and pitfalls likely to be encountered by practitioners. This seminar will also consider current and best conveyancing practice in this context.
The matters to be addressed at the seminar are as follows:
Judicial Review
“Substantial interest” and “substantial grounds”
Participation in the planning process
Will leave be granted if there is an alternative remedy?
Limitation on the right to appeal: a point of law of exceptional public importance
Judicial Review in respect of part only of a decision
Enforcement
Warning letters and enforcement notices
Is it necessary for a local authority to issue a warning letter before serving an enforcement notice?
Recent decisions relating to enforcement procedures:
Bill Lawlor v Dundalk Town Council and
Marshall v Arklow Town Council
Fast-track planning
Developments by local authorities and state authorities
Caution in relation to proposals for further fast-track planning
Development Contributions
How are they calculated?
Is the system as transparent as is claimed?
Default permissions
Time limits
Time limits in which a planning authority must make its decision
Time limits for lodging appeals with An Board Pleanala
Time limits in which an Board Pleanala must make its decision on appeal
Time limits in which each local authority must make a new development plan
Time limits for claims for compensation
Time limits affecting special contributions
Time limits for the duration or life of a planning permission
Enforcement of criminal proceedings
Is it a criminal offence not to comply with the conditions of a properly drawn Enforcement Notice?
What is a properly drawn Enforcement Notice?
Social and affordable housing
ontributions payable for permissions which would have withered under Planning and Development Act, 2000
What is Social Housing?
What is Affordable Housing?
Claw-back provisions
Practical points arising from common conditions in planning permissions
Importance of ensuring compliance with pre-development conditions before signing contract
Planning checklist for conveyancers
Refusals for past failures
Taking in charge of estates
The object of this seminar is to consider the planning law issues which regularly impact on conveyancing transactions and to review recent developments. The overall emphasis will be on practicality and the seminar will address the problems and pitfalls likely to be encountered by practitioners. This seminar will also consider current and best conveyancing practice in this context.
The matters to be addressed at the seminar are as follows:
Judicial Review
“Substantial interest” and “substantial grounds”
Participation in the planning process
Will leave be granted if there is an alternative remedy?
Limitation on the right to appeal: a point of law of exceptional public importance
Judicial Review in respect of part only of a decision
Enforcement
Warning letters and enforcement notices
Is it necessary for a local authority to issue a warning letter before serving an enforcement notice?
Recent decisions relating to enforcement procedures:
Bill Lawlor v Dundalk Town Council and
Marshall v Arklow Town Council
Fast-track planning
Developments by local authorities and state authorities
Caution in relation to proposals for further fast-track planning
Development Contributions
How are they calculated?
Is the system as transparent as is claimed?
Default permissions
Time limits
Time limits in which a planning authority must make its decision
Time limits for lodging appeals with An Board Pleanala
Time limits in which an Board Pleanala must make its decision on appeal
Time limits in which each local authority must make a new development plan
Time limits for claims for compensation
Time limits affecting special contributions
Time limits for the duration or life of a planning permission
Enforcement of criminal proceedings
Is it a criminal offence not to comply with the conditions of a properly drawn Enforcement Notice?
What is a properly drawn Enforcement Notice?
Social and affordable housing
ontributions payable for permissions which would have withered under Planning and Development Act, 2000
What is Social Housing?
What is Affordable Housing?
Claw-back provisions
Practical points arising from common conditions in planning permissions
Importance of ensuring compliance with pre-development conditions before signing contract
Planning checklist for conveyancers
Refusals for past failures
Taking in charge of estates
Thursday, 28 December 2006
Planning law books
A few books which may be useful to planners, but not exactly Christmas tree presents are:
Henry Comerford & Aengus R.M. Fogarty, Environmental Law: A Glossary and Handbook (Round Hall, Dublin, 2000)
Henry Comerford, Wildlife Legislation 1976-2000 (Round Hall, Dublin, 2001)
John Crean, Do You Require Planning Permission? An Illustrated Guide, 2nd ed. (Round Hall, Dublin, 2002)
J.A. Dowling, Northern Ireland Planning Law (Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1995)
H.M. Fitzpatrick, Trees and the Law (Law Society of Ireland, 1985)
Eamon Galligan, Irish Planning Law and Procedure (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, 1997) (2nd ed. due 2002)
Ronan Keane, Law of Local Government in the Republic of Ireland (Law Society of Ireland, 1982)
Barbara Maguire, Michael O'Reilly & Michael S. Roche, Irish Environmental Legislation (Round Hall, Dublin, 1999)
Michael O'Donnell, Planning Law (Annotated Irish Statutes Series, Butterworths, Dublin, 1999)
Donal Ó Laoghaire, Inland Waters: Environmental Legislation (Butterworths, 1995)
Donal Ó Laoghaire, Waste Management Legislation (Round Hall, Dublin, 2001)
Philip O'Sullivan & Katharine Shepherd, Irish Planning Law and Practice (Butterworths, 1991 with updates to 2001) (2 volumes looseleaf)
Yvonne Scannell, Environmental and Planning Law in Ireland (Round Hall Press, 1995) [2nd ed. 2006]
Garrett Simons, Planning and Development Law (Thomson Round Hall, Dublin, 2003)
Sharon Turner & Karen Morrow, Northern Ireland Environmental Law (Gill & Macmillan, Dublin, 1997)
Henry Comerford & Aengus R.M. Fogarty, Environmental Law: A Glossary and Handbook (Round Hall, Dublin, 2000)
Henry Comerford, Wildlife Legislation 1976-2000 (Round Hall, Dublin, 2001)
John Crean, Do You Require Planning Permission? An Illustrated Guide, 2nd ed. (Round Hall, Dublin, 2002)
J.A. Dowling, Northern Ireland Planning Law (Gill and Macmillan, Dublin, 1995)
H.M. Fitzpatrick, Trees and the Law (Law Society of Ireland, 1985)
Eamon Galligan, Irish Planning Law and Procedure (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell, 1997) (2nd ed. due 2002)
Ronan Keane, Law of Local Government in the Republic of Ireland (Law Society of Ireland, 1982)
Barbara Maguire, Michael O'Reilly & Michael S. Roche, Irish Environmental Legislation (Round Hall, Dublin, 1999)
Michael O'Donnell, Planning Law (Annotated Irish Statutes Series, Butterworths, Dublin, 1999)
Donal Ó Laoghaire, Inland Waters: Environmental Legislation (Butterworths, 1995)
Donal Ó Laoghaire, Waste Management Legislation (Round Hall, Dublin, 2001)
Philip O'Sullivan & Katharine Shepherd, Irish Planning Law and Practice (Butterworths, 1991 with updates to 2001) (2 volumes looseleaf)
Yvonne Scannell, Environmental and Planning Law in Ireland (Round Hall Press, 1995) [2nd ed. 2006]
Garrett Simons, Planning and Development Law (Thomson Round Hall, Dublin, 2003)
Sharon Turner & Karen Morrow, Northern Ireland Environmental Law (Gill & Macmillan, Dublin, 1997)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)