The High Court will dismiss as “frivolous and vexatious” a couple’s case aimed at preventing the demolition of their large home that was built about 18 years ago without planning permission.
Plumber Chris Murray and his wife Rose issued their legal proceedings despite earlier agreeing to vacate their 588sq m family home so it could be demolished in September 2022.
They claimed new information came to light that means the court should set aside the agreement and earlier court orders requiring them to vacate.
In May 2017, the Supreme Court upheld High Court orders for them to remove any unauthorised development from their land at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, Co Meath. The Supreme Court gave them one year to vacate the property, which the court said had been “deliberately constructed in flagrant breach of the planning laws”.
This order to vacate was not complied with, and Meath County Council brought a motion in March 2019 seeking for the Murrays to be brought to court over alleged contempt of a court order.
The motion did not proceed as the two sides reached a settlement agreement in September 2020 that involved the Murrays agreeing to vacate the property within two years to facilitate its demolition by the council.
Three days before the expiry of the period to vacate, the Murrays issued a fresh case against Meath County Council. Their action sought a pause to the High Court and Supreme Court enforcement orders and injunctions preventing the local authority from taking any enforcement steps.
They claimed there was new evidence relating to land sterilisation agreements made by their land’s previous owners. They claimed this and a recent High Court judgment invalidated the planning refusals for their home.
The council asked the court to dismiss the case.
The background was set out in the judgment of Mr Justice Conor Dignam, who said he was “compelled to conclude” that the Murrays’ claim should be struck out. He agreed with the council that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
He noted that judicial review proceedings challenging a planning decision must be brought within eight weeks of the decision unless the High Court grants an extension on the basis of a council allegedly deliberately or fraudulently concealing information. The Murrays did not bring such a challenge, the judge said as he dismissed their case.
The Murrays were refused planning permission in 2006 but they proceeded to construct a home considerably larger than that for which they had sought permission.
The council wrote to them in 2007 requesting removal of “unauthorised development”, which led to the Murrays seeking permission to retain the build. The council and An Bord Pleanála refused this application and another later one seeking permission to demolish parts of the house and retain the rest.
Meath County Council initiated its enforcement proceedings in June 2007.
As part of their soon-to-be-dismissed case, the couple said they had applied again for planning permission for their home.
Mr Justice Dignam noted the council and An Bord Pleanála rejected the application before he delivered his decision. However, he was told the Murrays made a further planning application after this.
