M21 - Limerick to Rathkeale/Foynes [advance works to commence shortly]

This is one of them

The vetocracy rolls on, and the people of Adare and Limerick have to sit and suffer. Embarrassing stuff.

Should be thrown out of court on the first day.

I wondered this too.

If the court case fails who picks up the costs for the delay?

Here are details of the three Judicial Review cases relating to the M21:

2022/901 JR - https://www.csol.ie/ccms/web/high-court-search/case-details/2022/901/JR

Bryan Murphy of Clonshire Stud, Gortnagrour, Adare, a stud farm owner, represented by William Fry Solicitors

Apparent basis*: The proposed road will traverse the 90 acre stud, leading to the total destruction of the business. 

2022/903 JR - https://www.csol.ie/ccms/web/high-court-search/case-details/2022/903/JR

Paul Madden, of Blossom Hill, Rathkeale, a Dairy Farmer, represented by O’Connell & Clarke Solicitors

Apparent basis*: Impact on viability of his dairy and dry stock farming operation, seeking declaration that ABP’s decision was irrational, disproportionate and contrary to articles of the Constitution 

2022/904 JR - https://www.csol.ie/ccms/web/high-court-search/case-details/2022/904/JR

Ian Gilvarry, of Clonshirebeg, Adare, a cybersecurity professional, represented by O’Connell & Clarke Solicitors

Apparent basis*: alleges that the board acted beyond its powers by deciding on the planning application without considering the expert scientific report he submitted ahead of an oral hearing on the scheme

William Fry are obviously heavy hitters. O’Connell & Clarke Solicitors style themselves as “The Environmental & Planning Litigation Firm” (in big bold letters on their homepage) and are the firm that unsuccessfully represented Harrington’s fusiliers in their failed bid to halt the M28.

Additionally, both Madden and Gilvarry allege that there has been a failure to properly transpose into Irish law an EU directive concerning natural habitats. This is due to an alleged failure to establish the necessary conservation measures and/or conservation objectives in the Curraghcase Woods, a special area of conservation. They take issue with the board’s assessment of the development’s potential effects on wetland habitat, including the rare Desmoulin’s whorl snail.

The latter (failure to properly transpose an EU Directive into Irish Law) is a claim that O’Connell & Clarke Solicitors also threw into the mix in the M28 case. This is colloquially known as “going all the way to Europe if necessary”, and gets thrown in in the hope that it would open an additional avenue of appeal to the Court of Justice of the EU if the Judicial Review and any subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court fail. The Superior courts, who effectively control access to the ECJ, thought otherwise in the M28 case and it went nowhere near Europe despite the bluster.  

*None of the court documentation is available online. However I have attempted to summarise the apparent basis of the cases from the following newspaper articles:

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/01/17/court-challenges-brought-against-450m-limerick-road-project/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-41050505.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/new-motorway-will-destroy-us-says-stud-farm-owner-who-sells-racehorses-to-british-royal-family-40306539.html

If you mean the increased costs resulting from construction starting in 20xx instead of 2023/2024/2025 (as a result of construction inflation) then that will be borne entirely by the exchequer/eu.

If you are talking about the legal costs, there is no definitive answer. Generally in Law, costs follow the event (in very simple terms the looser pays). However some planning related appeals fall under a provision of the Aarhus Convention which seeks to ensure that the high costs attached to legal action do not serve to prevent individuals or groups taking action where environmental issues arise. In other words the convention seeks to ensure access to justice in relation to environmental matters. What is/isn't covered by this is much debated (the Supreme Court ruled on one case relating to this only a few weeks ago, and overturned a prior ruling by the Court of Appeal, which in turn overturned the High Court decision). But is does explain this constant appearance of snails, dragonflies, rare pink flowers and what not, which get lumped into the JR cases and appeals thereby opening the gate to plaintiff not having to pay the defendant's (ABP, State etc) costs. I'd emphasise that there is no certainty, but making it "an environmental" case does open up the possibility of the person making the appeal ducking the other side's costs if they are unsuccessful.

Agreed. Crazy that a project of this scale can be held up for so long.

I think once PP is given, any JR should be immediate. This means resources but the cost of that must be exponentially cheaper than the delays

For the sake of navigation, there's a good argument that the current N69 should be reclassified as a regional route, and have N69 run between N21 at Rathkeale and Foynes.

The current N69 is only a National road because it goes to Foynes. Once that route ceases to be the best way between Foynes and the rest of the network, there's really no reason to keep it as a National road.

Will archaeology works take place over the winter months or will they wait until the spring? Its a pity the tender didn't issue a few months ago.

Looks like the CPO process won't be plain sailing....

Still surprised they managed to get the 3 judicial reviews to be withdrawn. Assume details won't be released

Farmers holding out for every penny they can get and playing the poor mouth looking for sympathy, that's just par for the course. It's the same for every project. These ones seem to be trying to also drag CIE in as part of their shakedown, they'll try anything.