A week, in legal terms, can mean a period of more than seven days if the deadline for lodging a case falls on a weekend or public holiday, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Brian Murray pondered the legal definition of a week in a decision permitting a local group to challenge a €175 million wind farm proposed for Castlebanny, Co Kilkenny.
The High Court had rejected the case brought by Save the South Leinster Way Group and its chairperson Tara Heavey after finding they were one day late in filing it.
Section 50(6) of the Planning and Development Act requires a court application for judicial review to be filed “within eight weeks” of the relevant planning decision being determined.
An Irishwoman sailing around the world: ‘This paradise has just seven residents and two dogs’
Tailbacks from Forty Foot stretch for miles as Christmas swimmers descend
‘What has you here?’: Eight years dead and safe in a Galway graveyard, yet here Grandad was standing before me
Róisín Ingle: My profound, challenging, surprisingly joyful, life-changing year
For the wind farm challengers, the eight-week period ended on a Sunday and they filed their papers the next day when the courts office reopened.
In his October 2023 ruling, the High Court’s Mr Justice Richard Humphreys warned planning challengers to avoid a “do-or-die scramble” to get the last seat out on the last helicopter from Saigon and to instead allow for “some kind of margin for error”.
“Knocking out an applicant who is a day out seems harsh. But that’s inherent in having any boundary rules on anything” he said.
The residents’ group and Ms Heavey, of Thomastown, appealed to the top court, which on Thursday found they should be allowed to bring their challenge over An Bord Pleanála’s September 2022 approval of a 21-turbine wind farm planned by Springfield Renewables.
Mr Justice Murray, of the Supreme Court, said there were a few ways to interpret the phrase “within eight weeks”.
One approach would be to say that the Oireachtas fixed a clear period and the courts should not usurp the legislative function by construing the wording as bearing anything other than its “clear, unambiguous and indisputable meaning”.
Such an approach is “clear and certain, but potentially harsh”, and he preferred to interpret the section as allowing an extension of time to the next day on which court offices are open and able to accept judicial review applications.
He felt it was appropriate to take this route by assuming the Oireachtas, in defining the period, intended to accommodate century-old court rules that take into consideration the opening times of court offices.
His decision was supported by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley and Mr Justice Maurice Collins.
Mr Justice Collins gave a separate judgment finding that the case could be fully answered by following the long-established court rules permitting applications on the next working day.
Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly agreed the appeal should be upheld but outlined different reasons.
She found that the common law presumption applying generally to statutory limitation periods also applies to the section 50(6) limit. Ms Justice Dunne and Ms Justice O’Malley agreed with her judgment.
All five judges of the court agreed the local group and Ms Heavey, represented by Harrington and Company, should win their appeal and be allowed to bring their case.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
