using false info on an objection to a p.a

mirror mirror

if false information (LIES) was written by an objector to a planning application ,is this libel. in parts what was written by objector was downright disgraceful. He being a neighbour and relation wrote this tripe in the full knowledge it was untrue,but then signs his name to it:D

Jo King

May be, maybe not. It depends on the contents of what is said. Untruth is only one element of a defamatory statement.

mirror mirror

for instance, writing that a list of neighbours who were approached and agreed to sign letters of support are false. in fact three A4pages of crap containing one allegation after another.The planning dept. involved have said they have rarely seen such vindictiveness.it is now passed by council but brought to the bord planeala by this person.

Reloc8

I am not completely sure but I believe a statement in the course of a planning application process is covered by S. 17(2)(h) of the Defamation Act 2009, being a statement made in the course of proceedings involving the exercise of limited functions and powers of a judicial nature in accordance with Article 37 of the Constitution where the statement is connected with those proceedings.

I welcome correction - I'd have to check a couple of things out before being definitive including my belief that planning decisions are considered to come within Article 37 by way of being quasi-judicial in nature.

If its privileged, then there's nothing you can do about it.

mirror mirror

thanks for reply,what does quasi-judicial in nature mean?

Reloc8

You're welcome.

Planning decisions are considered to be quasi-judicial on the basis that they affect legal rights and obligations (in the manner of a judicial decision) but do not result from proceedings in a court established under the constitution.

Article 37 mentioned above ensures decisions which are similar to or have similar characteristics to judicial decisions don't have to be arrived at following a court case but can be reached by an appropriate body e.g. planning authorities, revenue commissioners and the like.

It's considered desirable to have that facility, so that you can appoint specialised tribunals (tribunals in the broad sense of the word not in the eh more currently recognished definition) to make decisions within the area of their expertise. This is seen as improving the quality of the decision and of course avoiding unnecessary litigation.

The consequence of a given power/decision being considered quasi-judicial in nature is that in order to lawfully exercise/reach the power/decision fair procedures and natural justice must be observed. Further, the exercise of the power/reaching of a decision can be challenged by way of seeking judicial review in the High Court.

i.e., it is permissible that the decision-maker can do their particular job, but also considered desirable that there nonetheless be the facility for some court-oversight of same because of the importance of the decision for the people affected by it (as it affects their rights and obligations).

That oversight howver goes more fundamentally to the fairness/legality of the procedure as opposed to the merits of the decision.

nuac

In pratice, planning authorities would consider planning points only raised in the objection.