Previous Next

HC126

Planning & Environment List

PRACTICE DIRECTION HC 126
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LIST

Contents

PART I – GENERAL PROVISIONS
(1) Scope of the List
(2) Satellite Litigation.
(3) Purpose and Goals of the List
(4) Operation of the List
(5) Monday Listings.
(6) Communications with the Court
(7) Papers to be Lodged.
(8) Amendment of Pleadings.
(9) Adjournments.

PART II – STAGE-BY-STAGE PROCESSING OF CASES.
(10) Applications other than by way of Judicial Review.
(11) Intended Applications.
(12) Intended Applications to admit to the List
(13) Statements of Grounds and Grounding Affidavits.
(14) Notice of Motion to Admit case to the List
(15) Hearing of ex parte Leave Application.
(16) The Grant of Leave.
(17) First Return Date of substantive Notice of Motion.
(18) Statements of Opposition.
(19) Issues arising after the first Mention Date.
(20) Papers to be Lodged prior to Seeking Date.
(21) Fixing of date for hearing (expedited and standard procedure) & designation of document management party
(22) Written Submissions.
(23) Authorities for the Hearing.
(24) The Running of the Hearing.
(25) Judgments and Orders.

SCHEDULE 1 – DEFAULT TERMS OF LEAVE ORDER.

SCHEDULE 2 – DEFAULT DIRECTIONS SCHEDULE.

SCHEDULE 3 – PLEADING REQUIREMENTS IN THE LIST.

SCHEDULE 4 – TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Cases in being.
Hearing durations for cases already fixed.
Schedules of directions.
Document Management Party.

GUIDANCE NOTES.

Contacts.
General information about the List
ShareFile.
Monday listings.
Procedure to obtain a date.
September sittings.
Explanatory note regarding stamp duty.
Sitting arrangements.
CJEU references – guidance as to procedure.
Forms.

CONTACT SHEET FOR REFERENCES TO THE CJEU.
CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST FOR APPLYING FOR A DATE.

I, David Barniville, President of the High Court, hereby issue the following Practice Direction in accordance with the general authority of the President of the High Court and section 11(12) and (13) of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.

Practice Direction HC124 (recast) is revoked with effect from Monday 24 June 2024 which shall be the commencement day of this Practice Direction.The transitional provisions in Schedule 4 shall apply.

PART I – GENERAL PROVISIONS

(1) Scope of the List

The Planning and Environment List (“the List”) will be heard by the judges assigned to the Planning and Environment Division of the High Court and managed by the Judge in Charge of the List.
The List encompasses the following categories of cases:

The following that will be automatically entered without the necessity for application by any party (in such cases the party bringing the proceedings should entitle the proceedings as set out in paragraph 4; such cases will be administratively entered subject to the possibility of an application by any other party under paragraph 5):
1. proceedings related to decisions or other acts and omissions involving any of the following EU legislation or any legislation amending or replacing them (or any EU legislation which was replaced by the following), including proceedings related to the adequacy of transposition of such EU legislation:
  1. the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, 91/271/EEC;
  2. the Nitrates Directive, 91/676/EEC;
  3. the Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC;
  4. the Aarhus Convention 1998 as an element of EU law;
  5. the Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC;
  6. the SEA Directive, 2001/42/EC;
  7. the National Emissions Ceiling Directive, 2016/2284;
  8. the Environmental Noise Directive, 2002/49/EC;
  9. the Directive on access to information on the environment (AIE), 2003/4/EC;
  10. the Environmental Liability Directive, 2004/35/EC;
  11. the Bathing Water Directive, 2006/7/EC;
  12. the Groundwater Directive, 2006/118/EC;
  13. the Clean Air For Europe Directive, 2008/50/EC;
  14. the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, 2008/56/EC;
  15. the Waste Framework Directive, 2008/98/EC;
  16. the Birds Directive, 2009/147/EC;
  17. the Industrial Emissions Directive, 2010/75/EU;
  18. the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, 2011/92/EU as amended by 2014/52/EU;
  19. the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, 2014/89/EU;
  20. the renewable energy directive 2018/2001 (in particular projects to which Article 16(6) relates) as amended by directive 2023/2413;
  21. the Drinking Water Directive, (EU) 2020/2184;
  22. any other EU directive, regulation or other instrument relating to land use, the marine environment, environmental aspects of agriculture and fisheries, water, species, habitats, climate, air, atmosphere, soil, landscape, genetically modified organisms, archaeological, historic and cultural heritage or any other aspect of or otherwise relating to the environment; or
2. proceedings related to decisions or other acts and omissions under any of the following legislation or any legislation amending or replacing them (or any legislation which was replaced by the following), including challenges to the validity of such legislation or the adequacy of transposition of EU law therein:
  1. the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977;
  2. the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992;
  3. the Roads Act 1993;
  4. the Waste Management Act 1996;
  5. the Planning and Development Act 2000;
  6. the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 133 of 2007);
  7. the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011;
  8. the Forestry Act 2014;
  9. the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015;
  10. the Minerals Development Act 2017;
  11. the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021;
  12. statutory provisions referred to in section 4(4) of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 or any other legislation providing for the grant of development consent or environmental licensing, including non exhaustively or legislation providing procedures for consent for infrastructure projects;
  13. legislation regarding air pollution, dumping at sea, environmental aspects of fisheries, gas, national oil reserves, petroleum, sea pollution or wildlife;
  14. any other legislation relating to land use, the marine environment, environmental aspects of agriculture and fisheries, water, species, habitats, climate, air, atmosphere, soil, landscape, genetically modified organisms, archaeological, historic and cultural heritage or any other aspect of or otherwise relating to the environment; or
  15. any other legislation giving effect to the directives referred to above or to international legal instruments relating to fields covered by the foregoing;
3. the following matters:
  1. satellite litigation as defined below; and
  2. the determination of questions as to whether any given proceedings constitute satellite litigation;
The following cases which may be entered on application to the court, noting that assessment of the case for the purpose of admission will relate to the subject-matter of the dispute and not the specific issues raised:
1. any case not falling within sub-paragraph (a) or (b) that in the opinion of the court is of a planning or environmental nature or has planning or environmental aspects that would render it appropriate for admission to the List (including, non-exhaustively, cases related to climate, air, water, wastewater, renewable and non-renewable energy, minerals or other natural resource protection, flora or fauna, forestry, fisheries/ aquaculture, or the maritime environment or international agreements of an environmental nature or with environmental characteristics or implications); and
2. any dispute regarding an element of a project that is linked to or consequential on a decision to which proceedings in the List relate, such as compulsory acquisition orders or wayleave notices related to a development consent impugned in the proceedings.
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) respectively shall be deemed to include matters substantively appealed from the Circuit Court or applications to the High Court by way of appeal from a refusal of the Circuit Court to transfer the case to the High Court.

Notwithstanding the scope of the list as set out in paragraph 2, cases shall be assigned different levels of priority and it shall be an objective that business shall be managed so that capacity is retained in the List to deal expeditiously with urgent cases such as proceedings which concern large-scale projects of strategic importance, large residential developments, projects covered by the renewable energy directive, matters of significant environmental impact and alleged SLAPP applications and applications to strike out such proceedings at an initial stage, so that these proceedings can continue to be prioritised and afforded an early hearing date.
All pleadings in the List shall be entitled:

THE HIGH COURT
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Where a party initiates an action in the list on the basis that it is automatically included, or requests the List Registrar to enter the case automatically in the list on that basis, and any other party considers that the case does not properly fall within the scope of automatic admission, and would not be appropriate for admission under paragraph 2(b), such other party may apply to the Judge in Charge of the List on notice to the other parties for an order transferring the case to another list. No application may be made to admit a case coming within the scope of the List into any other list unless an application under this paragraph is first made and granted.

(2) Satellite Litigation

For the purposes of the scope of the List –

“party” includes any member, director, officer, servant or agent of a party or other persons that can reasonably be seen as acting in concert with any such parties, and for this purpose;
“satellite litigation” means proceedings of any kind that relate to or arise from the legal or factual matters to which the substantive litigation relates; and includes (but is not limited to) alleged Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) applications, actions in defamation, anti-suit or similar injunctions, allegations regarding maintenance and champerty, or actions to obtain information; and
“substantive litigation” means any proceedings in the List.

No party may make any application in any satellite litigation to any judge of the High Court other than to the Judge in Charge of the List or, to the extent directed by that judge, to another judge assigned to the List.
Where no judge assigned to the List is sitting at the time it is proposed to make an application, the moving party must contact the List Registrar to obtain directions by or on behalf of the Judge in Charge of the List as to how and when the application may be made.
Where any satellite litigation is commenced on or after the commencement date of this Practice Direction, or where, at any time after the date of this Practice Direction, parties to proceedings disagree about whether the proceedings constitute satellite litigation, the parties shall forthwith inform the List Registrar in order to list the litigation for mention in the List on the next convenient sitting Monday.

(3) Purpose and Goals of the List

The purpose of the List is to provide as efficient a processing as is consistent with justice of such planning and environmental cases, and related cases as specified above, as are assigned or admitted to the List.
The specific goals of the List include:

to provide a specialised mechanism to process cases across a comprehensive definition of the planning and environment field, broadly defined, compliant with the Aarhus Convention, the EU law right to an effective remedy and other applicable domestic, European and international standards;
to provide effective and paperless access to justice for cases within the List and to provide their efficient, fair and equitable disposition;
to the extent requested by any party, to provide such certainty as can be achieved as to costs rules prior to the incurring of inter partes costs in the proceedings;
to maximise use of resources and minimise costs through case management, in order to minimise the need for or incidence of multiple interlocutory or interim applications and adjourned substantive hearings, and to take any other steps so that matters proceed expeditiously to hearing and, when at hearing, are expeditiously determined;
so far as resources permit, to provide hearing dates to all cases eligible for a List to Fix Dates (LFD) for a particular term, within the term to which the LFD relates, and to provide more immediate hearing dates for expedited matters;
to promote the general objective that issues as to the validity or ECHR-compatibility of laws or measures of general application are dealt with only if other domestic or EU law points are not determinative, such objective to be given effect to inter alia by modularisation save in exceptional circumstances unless the parties otherwise agree, or where the expedited procedure applies, but where modularisation is not directed, the validity or ECHR-compatibility of measures of general application will not generally be determined by the court in any event unless the applicant is unsuccessful on other grounds; and
to balance the demands on the judges assigned to the List so that the court can deliver judgments in a timely manner, and, insofar as possible, within a 2 month period of term-time from the date on which judgment is reserved.

What is requested and expected from parties and practitioners is inter alia as follows:

lawyers should satisfy themselves that they are likely to have capacity to comply with timelines prior to accepting instructions to act in cases where a schedule of directions leading to a hearing date has been or is likely to be directed, bearing in mind in particular the nature of the case and the prospect of an expedited hearing in that regard;
a reasonable and business-like approach to the processing of matters within the List;
endeavours to prepare pleadings and submissions in as intelligible and succinct a manner as reasonably possible and generally to facilitate the court in understanding the real issues in the proceedings and in properly dealing with those issues;
sustained and realistic efforts be made to reach agreement on as many issues, particularly procedural issues, as are practicable in the circumstances;
proposals from other parties to save time and reduce costs and reduce areas of dispute be given reasonable consideration;
the avoiding of unnecessary interlocutory disputes, particularly where disagreement can reasonably be saved for a single substantive hearing;
compliance with such time limits as are directed, including for oral submissions, and, for that purpose, the highlighting by parties of their main submissions in a concise manner;
conducting correspondence and communications inter partes in as business-like, co-operative and non-contentious a manner as circumstances permit;
generally co-operating with the court and each other in the efficient dispatch of business and the efficient management of hearings;
timely provision of documents (including, as applicable, pleadings or proposed agreed directions/ orders) to the court and List Registrar where applicable; and
reasonable willingness to explore ADR options if appropriate, or proposals from other parties or the court as to how areas of dispute might be reduced.

The foregoing provisions are intended to set out the aspirations and requests of the court and not to create or add to enforceable duties under either the Judicial Council Act 2019 or professional codes applicable to practitioners.

(4) Operation of the List

The default mode of hearing (subject to consideration of any application to the contrary) for listings in Monday lists, directions, case management or procedural matters is remote, and for cross-examination or other oral evidence is physical. Subject to consideration of any applications or submissions by the parties and to the principle of doing justice in public, and all other relevant circumstances, the court will determine the mode of hearing in any individual matter not covered by the foregoing.
The public are welcome to apply for access to any remote hearing subject to the possibility of any alternative order for a specific matter. Any person requesting access to a remote hearing otherwise than via a link supplied to parties and legal representatives should contact the List Registrar. Parties not addressing the Court during remote proceedings shall keep their microphones muted and camera switched off. No form of audio or visual recordings of remote proceedings apart from the official Digital Audio Recording (DAR) is permitted. Failure to abide by these requirements will lead to ejection from the remote proceedings. Participants using video are reminded of the desirability of doing so from appropriate locations.
The court may deal with or determine a matter on the papers in cases such as the following (in which case public access to details of the order will be facilitated by information on the High Court search website and/or by contacting the List Registrar as appropriate):
1. the matter relates to the organisation of the list only and does not constitute the administration of justice as such, for example by fixing a return date to enable the issue of a notice of motion, or a date for the listing of a matter, or by circulating questions or issues for the consideration of the parties, as opposed to the making of any decision;
2. the matter is non-contentious, for example a consent order/ adjournment;
3. the order concerns the correction of an order under the slip rule;
4. the parties request or consent to a decision on the papers; or
5. the matter is in the nature of an urgent or confidential application which may be dealt with otherwise than in public pursuant to section 45(1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 or other statutory provision.
For the purposes of this Practice Direction, reference to “consent” of the parties includes a situation where parties do not object/are neutral to the adjournment/order in question, and “parties” for this purpose does not include parties not taking an active part in either the proceedings as a whole or the particular module of it being dealt with by the court at the given time.
Where, for whatever reason, any judge of the List is not dealing judicially with a particular case or category of cases, such judge may, unless a party objects in advance, deal with the case administratively, for example by allowing the case to be mentioned for the purpose of being formally moved, or by fixing a date, or may make a consent order.
The Judge in Charge of the List may provide guidance (“guidance notes”) on the practical implementation of this Practice Direction, which are subject to rules of court and Practice Directions and which shall be published on courts.ie. Guidance notes may for example contain provisions specifying the form of the checklist to be completed for any given step (such as for applying for a date), specifying details of procedures for uploading of materials or so that matters can be listed for mention or hearing, providing information on sitting times or default times, informing parties of procedures regarding papers for CJEU references, or setting out time lines for submission of papers or information to the List Registrar for listings, and subject to the directions of the President, may adjust procedural arrangements in the List if necessary or expedient to do so. Where particular procedures have been successfully trialled in guidance notes, they may be incorporated in future versions of the Practice Direction for the List.

(5) Monday Listings

Where after a given Monday list is published in the Legal Diary, a consent order/ adjournment is to be made (including a final order) and is duly notified to the List Registrar, the consent order/ adjournment will be announced by the List Registrar in court when the matter is called, and the parties do not need to attend for this purpose. Consent matters will if possible be taken at the start of the main Monday List. The procedure for consent adjournments will not include an application for an adjournment of an ex parte application. Such a matter will be called in the list.
Parties are encouraged to agree as many issues as possible so as to avoid the necessity for the matter to be dealt with substantively in the Monday list. The List Registrar should be informed of any such agreement even after the deadlines set out in guidance notes. Where parties inform the List Registrar of consent to an adjournment after the relevant deadline, the List Registrar may endeavour to accommodate such an adjournment and, unless the parties are otherwise notified, that order will be made by the court on the Monday concerned on consent without the necessity for the parties to attend.
The draft list for any given Monday will be available from the List Registrar once prepared during the previous week.
The purpose of issuing a draft list is inter alia to facilitate parties in informing the court in advance of such consent orders/ adjournments as may be appropriate.
Where a matter is listed in the Monday list, parties should endeavour to agree on the appropriate order in advance of the matter being called.
Notices relevant to the List will be published on courts.ie. To facilitate on request reminders regarding such information and the circulation of draft lists, the List Registrar shall maintain an email circulation list of interested legal representatives or personal litigants in the List. Any interested practitioner or litigant will be added to this list on request by furnishing an email address to the List Registrar by contacting environment@courts.ie, on an inclusive and equal basis. Litigants will be removed from this list on request.

(6) Communications with the Court

In general other than in respect of ex parte applications, parties communicating with the List Registrar or the court should copy all other parties participating in the proceedings. Communications intended specifically for the attention of the court as opposed to the List Registrar should be addressed to the email address specified in Guidance Notes or the Legal Diary, and copied to the relevant judicial assistant.
Any inter partes correspondence regarding matters liable to be raised at a Monday listing of the matter should be copied to the email address specified in Guidance Notes or the Legal Diary, and the relevant judicial assistant and uploaded to the relevant ShareFile folder.

(7) Papers to be Lodged

Where rules of court require hard copy filing of particular papers, parties must comply with any such requirements. Insofar as reference is made to the electronic provision of documents, this does not constitute “electronic filing” which concerns pleadings, and which can only be provided for in rules of court (see s. 20 Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020).
Separately, parties should upload all papers for the attention of the court (as they are generated) to the ShareFile folder for the case. These should be in searchable PDF format in so far as possible, save where MS Word format is required. Such documents include the following (which may be varied by order in a particular case):

Document	MS Word format mandatory?	Sub-folder
Ex parte Docket	No	Motion Papers
Statement of case document – for motion/ interlocutory application/ costs issue/ other consequential issue/ modularised hearing on a conceded ground	Mandatory	Word Pleadings
Statement of case document – for trial	Mandatory	Word Pleadings
Statement of grounds (SOG) / statement of opposition (SOO)	Mandatory	Word Pleadings
Affidavits – for motion	Mandatory	Motion Papers
Affidavits – for trial	Mandatory	Trial Papers
Exhibits – for motion	No	Motion Papers
Exhibits – for trial	No	Trial Papers
Affidavits of Service	No	Motion Papers
Originating Notice of Motion	No	Trial Papers
Notices of Motion for Interlocutory relief	Mandatory	Word Pleadings
Written legal submissions when prepared	Mandatory	Word Submissions
All other appropriate documents – for motion	No	Motion Papers
All other appropriate documents – for trial	No	Trial Papers
Core book	No	Core Book
Checklist for fixing a date	Mandatory	Correspondence & Checklists
Open inter partes correspondence	No	Correspondence & Checklists
Index to authorities with hyperlinks	Mandatory	Authorities
Copies of any authorities limited to those not available on internet links	No	Authorities

A contents page for the ShareFile will not be required. In accordance with paragraph 4 of this Practice Direction, the Ex parte Docket and SOG are to be entitled:

THE HIGH COURT
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

For any purpose connected with the List, service of documents at any stage (including correspondence either before or after the issue of proceedings) on parties normally represented by the CSSO (particularly Ireland, the Attorney General, the Government of Ireland, a Minister of the Government, a Minister of State, a Government Department or any other organ of central government) shall be via the CSSO and not directly on such parties.
Exhibits are to be uploaded to ShareFile preferably as individual documents and in searchable format as far as possible. Where a bundle of documents are exhibited, the affidavit should contain a list of such documents. While these may formally be combined in a large exhibit they should generally be uploaded separately to enable parties access documents easily. Composite exhibit books are not generally required.
Unless otherwise ordered in an individual case in a particular respect, no hard copy papers are required to be furnished to the court.
All relevant documents are to be uploaded to the case ShareFile folder in the specified format. For any hearing, parties should however consider whether any documents particularly including maps, diagrams or images are in sufficient resolution to assist the court and if not should consider providing a hard copy.
Apart from matters of which judicial notice can be taken by law, no documents of potential evidential import should be uploaded to ShareFile unless duly exhibited on affidavit. Parties wishing to upload additional documents should obtain the agreement of the other parties for the filing of a short affidavit exhibiting such documents, or in default of agreement should apply to the court.
Parties must co-operate with the List Registrar to maintain a list of the solicitors and barristers (and, where applicable, litigants in person) who have access to the ShareFile link for the proceedings, by recording their names and email addresses.
Parties must upload all new papers in an organised manner, with file names that are descriptive of the contents (and in accordance with the file naming conventions as are stipulated in this Practice Direction) and that are uploaded in a way that avoids proliferation of subfolders. Each party shall be primarily responsible for uploading, location and correct naming of its own documents. No access to file deletion will be permitted.
No files shall be placed in the root directory. All papers shall be placed in the relevant folder or sub-folder.
No sub-folders may be created except in consultation with list registrars, for example where this is a desirable way to organise individual sub-books of papers.
When preparing/ uploading papers in Word document format, practitioners should clear formatting as much as possible. Save where otherwise provided in this Practice Direction, Word “headings” should be avoided as much as possible. Word documents must be in a minimum of 12 point type.
A party should not send any papers to the List Registrar (or the court) or notify the List Registrar or the court that such papers have been filed, without uploading those papers to ShareFile before doing so. In particular, a party should not send a SOG or proposed amended SOG to the other parties, the List Registrar or the court without uploading a copy of such document. Parties must ensure that the ShareFile folder is populated with all relevant papers (and that such papers are in the correct format and folder and have the correct file name as set out in this Practice Direction) in advance of any matter being listed in the Monday list.
Documents uploaded to the password-protected ShareFile platform should be in a readily openable format (PDF or DOCX) and should not be made time-limited or otherwise inaccessible by for example themselves being individually password-protected. ShareFile naming conventions are as follows:
1. all documents must have a 6-digit number at the start of the file name indicating the date of the document (not of upload), in format YYMMDD;
2. all file names must be descriptive but need not be formal and must be as short as is consistent with being informative to persons other than the creator of the document, e.g., not “Vol 8 exhibits” but “240401 Vol. 8 – EIAR” etc.; not “Registered Letter to Bloggs & Co dated 15 December 2019) but “191215 Roe to Bloggs”;
3. large files should be avoided, and ideally each individual exhibit should have its own PDF file titled as above;
4. filenames and folder names together should not create filepaths so long as to interfere with downloading of documents; and
5. any amended SOGs must be uploaded with a file name along the lines of:

YYMMDD SOG;
YYMMDD Amended SOG;
YYMMDD Second amended SOG etc.

Contents pages included in PDFs consisting of multiple documents shall briefly describe each document rather than merely give its reference number.
The court may, upon application to it, and subject to considering the views of the parties and to the imposition of such conditions and the requirement of such undertakings as it considers appropriate, by order grant access to the ShareFile or a relevant part of it to persons (including environmental NGOs) who are not parties to the proceedings, provided that such persons demonstrate sufficient reason for such access having regard to the interests of justice.
Time lines for submission of papers/ notifications to List Registrar are as follows, subject to more specific provision in this Practice Direction or guidance notes:

all papers (including written legal submissions and the statement of case) for any hearing should be uploaded by 11:00 on the Friday that is immediately before the call-over date. That date is normally the 2nd sitting Monday prior to the week of the hearing concerned.
motions (for example to admit a new case to the List) should be served by close of business on the Monday preceding the Monday list in which the motion is intended to appear (i.e., four clear days’ notice); and
all proposed new matters for any given Monday and any consent orders including consent certiorari or strike out, consent amended directions or consent adjournments should be notified to the List Registrar by 11:00 on the preceding Friday, and all papers (or amended papers) for any for mention listing on a Monday (including any checklist for applying for a date) should be submitted by that deadline.

(8) Amendment of Pleadings

In the context of an application for leave to seek judicial review, an applicant may seek liberty to amend the pleadings in accordance with O. 84, r. 20(4) RSC and/or to file affidavits for that purpose or in further support of the leave application; and the court may direct particularisation of the SOO in that context.
Following the grant of leave, a party may seek liberty to amend the pleadings in accordance with O. 84 r. 23(2) RSC on giving due notice to the other parties. If requested by any other party, subject to any direction of the court, such application should be brought by motion grounded on affidavit setting out the explanation for not having made the point in the original pleadings, together with such facts as are required to be averred to in order to establish arguable or substantial grounds (as the case may be) for the amended case.
In particular and subject to any applicable rule of court or legal principle, and without prejudice to the parties’ obligations to plead in accordance with the rules, this Practice Direction and any guidance notes, the court may permit or direct such amendments to any party’s pleadings as are appropriate to ensure compliance with the requirements of rules of court, this Practice Direction or guidance notes or to facilitate the real issue in dispute being addressed by the court. A party shall not be entitled by virtue only of such a permission or direction of the court to make additional substantive amendments to its pleadings without making application in that regard in accordance with rules of court.
When a case is admitted to the list, but pleadings are not in the format prescribed by any relevant substantive statutory provision, including rule of court or statutory practice direction, or guidance notes applicable to the list, the default order will be that the parties have liberty to amend their pleadings but only to the extent (if any) necessary to comply with such requirements. At the following listing date, the party with carriage of the proceedings must confirm that any non-compliance has been addressed. A party shall not be entitled by virtue only of a direction of the court as set out above to make additional substantive amendments to its pleadings without leave of the court. Where any opposing party objects in a timely manner (normally 14 days from the amended pleading being delivered to the objecting party) to the effect that any specified amendment has gone beyond the terms of such an order, the default order will be that the filed amended pleading be set aside, the applicant file an amended pleading containing only the formatting changes that are not objected to, and that the applicant bring a separate motion seeking the contested change, supported by affidavit containing the necessary explanations as referred to in paragraph 47.
If an amended SOG (or SOO) alleges new facts, or contains new pleas that require an explanation, it shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the proposed amended statement, explaining the substance and necessity of the amendment and (other than in respect of clarifying or formatting amendments directed by the court) explaining the failure to include the relevant content in the original SOG or SOO.
If the applicant is directed or permitted to file an amended SOG, the applicant shall furnish the List Registrar with an unfiled amended SOG in electronic Word document format.
Where any necessary supporting affidavit is not available at that time, the order may give liberty to file the amended SOG on the basis of an undertaking to file a verifying affidavit within a period to be specified (normally 14 days).
Unless otherwise directed by the court, any order allowing the filing of an amended SOG will be expressed to be without prejudice to any point the respondents/ notice parties (“opposing parties”) might have taken (if on notice) or might take in due course (if ex parte), and in the event of an amendment granted prior to considering a leave application, without prejudice to the issue of amendment being revisited by the court prior to granting leave should it appear necessary to do so.
Any amended pleading shall, in accordance with Order 28 rule 9, RSC, be marked with the date of the order under which it is amended, and the date on which such amendment is made, as follows:

“Amended the …… day of …… pursuant to order of Mr. / Ms. Justice …… dated the day …… of ….…”

This formula should be inserted immediately below the title of the pleading, for example “Amended Statement of Grounds” followed by “Amended the ... day of ... etc.”

(9) Adjournments

In relation to adjournment of an ex parte application:
1. where an applicant’s papers are not in order by reason of any matter that cannot conveniently be rectified by the court at the listing concerned, for example by reason of failure to upload the necessary papers to ShareFile to enable the court to properly consider the matter, it shall be presumed to be in the interests of justice that an applicant should have a single adjournment to rectify matters, which will normally be for one sitting week; and
2. where an applicant’s papers are not in order following the foregoing adjournment in such a way as to allow the court to deal conveniently with the application (for example due to failure to upload papers), the court may impose one or more of the consequences set out below in the event of any further adjournment being granted.
In relation to the adjournment of an application on notice:
1. in the case of a matter on notice, it shall be presumed that where the parties consent to an adjournment or other order, such an outcome is in the interests of justice; therefore where all parties taking an active role in the application concerned consent, the application will normally be acceded to by the court; and
2. where a party seeks an adjournment which is not consented to by all parties taking an active role in the application concerned, the matter shall be determined by the court and if such adjournment is granted in circumstances where there was any default or delay by any party, the court may if it is disposed to allow the adjournment impose one or more of the relevant consequences set out below.
The consequences referred to above are:
1. an order that any further adjournment be peremptory;
2. in the case of an ex parte application, an order that any further processing of the application be on notice;
3. an order modifying the application of the default directions in the particular case so that any time unnecessarily absorbed by the defaulting party will be deducted in whole or in part from that party’s time for a subsequent step.
4. an order that specified costs of the defaulting or delaying party be disallowed as between party and party or solicitor and client or both; and
5. such other consequence as the court considers appropriate and has jurisdiction to grant (and in that regard the foregoing specific consequences are without prejudice to the powers of the court whether as to costs or otherwise).

PART II – STAGE-BY-STAGE PROCESSING OF CASES

(10) Applications other than by way of Judicial Review

The procedural provisions of this Practice Direction are primarily phrased in terms of their application to judicial review as the predominant form of litigation in the List. In the case of proceedings other than by way of judicial review, such as plenary proceedings or applications under O. 84C RSC, where direct application of a provision of this Practice Direction is not appropriate, parties are requested, insofar as reasonable and practicable, and subject to any directions of the court, to apply such provision with such modifications as may be necessary or appropriate having regard to the differing forms of litigation that may arise. In cases of doubt, consent of the other parties or directions of the court should be sought. More detailed protocols regarding such application/ modification may be issued by guidance note as necessary in relation to particular types of litigation.

(11) Intended Applications

Where an applicant intends to make an application, the applicant should in the first instance contact the List Registrar to indicate the intention to do so.
The List Registrar will then advise as appropriate as to a mention date and arrange to create a ShareFile folder and provide details as appropriate, to which papers should be uploaded in advance of the first mention of the matter if possible, for the assistance of the court.

(12) Intended Applications to admit to the List

For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Practice Direction relating to applications to admit a case to the list do not apply to matters that are to be listed automatically in the List.
A party who intends to apply for the admission of proceedings to the List shall do so by communicating with the List Registrar in the first instance. Where admission is on consent, the List Registrar shall arrange for the listing of the matter without the necessity for a motion.
Where a party wishes to mention a leave application prior to and in anticipation of making the application for admission to the List, it may do so and the court will provide a return date for a motion to admit and will normally adjourn the leave application to that date.
In particular, a judicial review applicant who intends to make such an application is encouraged to apply to the court through the List Registrar at the earliest stage, preferably prior to or at the first mention of the judicial review application.
Where a return date for a notice of motion is provided as above, subject to any order of the court to the contrary, mention dates for the proceedings in any other list shall be administratively vacated as an interim measure pending the determination of the motion and shall be reinstated on the next convenient date in the event that the application for entry into the List is refused. The vacation of mention dates in other lists does not undermine or prejudice in any way the right of any other party to oppose the application for admission to the list, but rather ensures that the matter will be dealt with in a logical sequence.

(13) Statements of Grounds and Grounding Affidavits

Pleadings generally must follow the formats set out in Schedule 3. Those pleading requirements and the scrutiny of pleadings at or after the leave stage by the court do not detract from the principle that it shall be the responsibility of each party at all times to ensure compliance with the pleading requirements of the List and of legislation and rules of court. When seeking admission to the List, leave to apply for judicial review, the fixing of a date or any other relevant order, a party shall not inform the court that papers are in order unless the papers comply with such requirements and also unless the papers have been properly served if service is required for the particular application. Parties must address pleading requirements from the outset, and should endeavour to minimise the need for amendment, the extent of any formatting or other amendments and the number of occasions on which such amendments need to be sought.
Parties considering challenging any preliminary decision prior to a final substantive decision should in cases of doubt seek consent from the proposed respondents and notice parties to the effect that no point will be taken against the applicants if the challenge is postponed to the final decision and that any extension of time for that purpose, if required, will be consented to. If such consent is not forthcoming and an application is brought, the court may award costs of that challenge, irrespective of its result, against any party who caused unnecessary costs to be incurred by declining to furnish such consent.

Grounding affidavits

The facts alleged in the SOG must be verified by affidavit.
All documents that, in the opinion of the applicant, are relevant to the issues raised by the SOG should be exhibited to the applicant’s grounding affidavit, insofar as in the possession of the applicant.
Insofar as such documents are not in the applicant’s possession as of the date of swearing, reasonable steps should be taken to procure such documents (insofar as that may be practicable) prior to the swearing of the grounding affidavit; and such documents should be exhibited in due course when obtained, unless exhibited by another party to the proceedings.
An applicant is not obliged to filter the material before the decision-maker to positively remove what is thought not relevant from the material to be exhibited, and in case of doubt applicants are encouraged to exhibit the totality of material before the decision-maker that is available to them.
In accordance with Order 84 rule 21(1A)(ii), a grounding affidavit may be sworn by or on behalf of an applicant. Where there is more than one applicant, it will be sufficient if at least one deponent swears/affirms a grounding affidavit on behalf of all applicants, provided that the deponent avers to all of the applicants having authorised and approved the content of that verifying affidavit and the SOG. Where the applicant is a body corporate or unincorporated association, any person in authority may swear/affirm the grounding affidavit on behalf of and with the authority of the body/ association or alternatively may confirm to the deponent that the affidavit can be sworn on behalf of the body or association. In the event of any difficulty with the foregoing, directions of the court should be sought in good time prior to seeking to file the papers.
It shall not be strictly necessary for any party to exhibit on affidavit copies of any document of which the court is entitled by law to take judicial notice, but if the application of that doctrine is not agreed, or if uncertainty could arise in relation to the document or if it is more convenient to have it formally on the papers it is preferable to exhibit such a document. Any other document not being a document of which judicial notice can be taken should be duly exhibited on affidavit. Where doubt arises in relation to whether judicial notice shall be taken of any document, it need not be exhibited if the parties so agree.

(14) Notice of Motion to Admit case to the List

Where a party to proceedings considers that the proceedings come within the category of cases to be automatically entered in the List, that party shall notify the List Registrar accordingly. Subject to any directions of the Judge in Charge of the List, any proceedings so notified shall be listed for mention in the List on the next convenient sitting Monday, and listings in any other list shall be administratively vacated. Where the automatic inclusion of the matter in the list is contested, resulting in the court considering that the matter falls outside such a category, or where any application to admit a case to the List is refused, the case will be administratively entered in the appropriate list at the earliest convenient date, without prejudice to any legally relevant step already taken.
Any party to proceedings that are or may be, in the opinion of that party, proceedings capable of being admitted to the List and that have not been automatically admitted to the List may apply by motion for the admission of the case to the List.
An opposing party in proceedings may apply to the court for the matter to be administratively entered in the List, or admitted by order, as soon as such party becomes aware of the proceedings including prior to the service of any papers by the applicant.
An application (other than on consent) to admit a case to the list shall be made by notice of motion grounded on affidavit explaining how the case is appropriate for admission to the List. The application may be made at any stage prior to the trial of the action. Prior to issuing the motion, the moving party must arrange with the List Registrar for the creation of a ShareFile folder for the case. When serving papers the moving party must ensure that all pleadings and affidavits are uploaded to ShareFile and that the respondent(s) to the motion are informed of the email address to apply to in order to arrange access to this folder.
No applications to admit cases within the scope of this Practice Direction to the Commercial List may be made in that list, and in lieu thereof, any such application should be made in the List.
The motion seeking admission to the list should not be moved, and the court should not be informed that papers are in order, unless either all parties consent to admission or the motion has been served on all parties at least 4 clear days prior to the hearing of the motion. On hearing a motion issued under paragraph 78, the Court may make an order admitting the case into the List.

(15) Hearing of ex parte Leave Application

In the case of any ex parte leave application, applicants shall as soon as practicable following the filing of the statement of grounds notify all other parties to the proceedings by email or post of the fact of the proceedings, and the date of next mention or listing and inform them that they may obtain papers for information by contacting the appropriate email address as set out in guidance notes or otherwise, to obtain access to ShareFile. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall not constitute leave on notice.
Any opposing party shall not be under any obligation to attend any ex parte proceedings until formally served with an originating notice of motion (which as set out below may be electronically) or other similar document such as notice of an order of the court putting the matter on notice. Such party shall not be prejudiced in any way for not so attending and shall not be held to have acquiesced in any step or failed to raise any objection or other matter in a timely way by virtue of such non-attendance. If such a party does attend, it by default will be permitted to make brief submissions of a procedural nature (for example, to request a direction for leave on notice) but not to argue that the application for leave or any part of it should be refused (unless the court orders leave on notice). Such a party will not be required to contribute to the leave hearing unless it so wishes.
Where a leave application is adjourned by reason of a failure by or on behalf of an applicant to upload any papers to ShareFile in a timely manner or at all, or a non-compliance with the required format of the SOG or other papers, any order made in due course reserving the costs of the leave application shall be deemed to include only the costs of a single date and of a single version of the SOG, unless the court makes express provision to the contrary in the final order of the court awarding costs, and subject to the not-prohibitively-expensive rule where it applies.
Where any non-compliance with the format of the SOG or other papers can conveniently be addressed by way of the form of an order granting leave upon the submission to the court of amended or additional papers in a form directed, the court may proceed to consider the grant of leave on such basis, but any order will not be perfected until the submission by the applicant to court of any amended/ additional papers as so directed.

(16) The Grant of Leave

Should leave to seek judicial review be granted, the standard terms which will apply in default of any order to the contrary will be as set out in Schedule 1. The default directions schedule is as set out in Schedule 2. Any party seeking alternative orders or directions then or later should apply to the court. Any order shall normally be deemed to include such terms unless they are expressly excluded.

(17) First Return Date of substantive Notice of Motion

On the first return date of the substantive notice of motion for reliefs by way of judicial review, the default position will be as follows:
1. unless the expedited procedure applies by default or the validity of the measure concerned represents the primary relief sought by the applicant, or the urgency or nature of the matter indicates otherwise, any reliefs against State respondents regarding the validity or ECHR-compatibility of any primary or secondary legislation or of any instrument of general application (such as a guideline) will be adjourned to a subsequent module in all but exceptional circumstances absent the consent of the parties;
2. this shall not apply to issues of transposition unless such issues can be modularised without affecting any issues of conforming interpretation that may arise in the remaining grounds;
3. it will be open to any party to apply otherwise;
4. the proceedings will be adjourned straight from the first return date to the next appropriate LFD, unless the expedited procedure applies or is sought by any party; and
5. if the expedited procedure applies (or the court decides to afford that procedure having heard the parties), the court shall fix a hearing date at the outset and directions shall comply with the requirement for all matters to be in place including the statement of case not later than 11 days prior to the date so fixed.
On or at any time after the first return date, if so requested by the applicant and in the interests of case management and in particular avoiding unnecessary and unstructured applications to the court for a stay, the court may if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, and in the absence of agreement to give such notice, direct that any developer in respect of any impugned development consent shall give 2 weeks’ notice to the applicant of any intention to carry out works pursuant to the consent, for the purposes of enabling any consequential issues to be dealt with by the court in an orderly manner. Where the developer has agreed to, or been directed to, give such notice, any application for a stay within the period of notice shall be made by the applicant on notice.

(18) Statements of Opposition

(a) SOOs should follow the format in Schedule 3.

(b) SOOs should be as short as possible and limited to 10,000 words. The court may authorise an extension to the word limit.

(19) Issues arising after the first Mention Date

As regards issues arising after the first mention date:
1. If possible, parties should correspond on any issues and not raise them with the court during the weekly list unless agreement has first been sought and refused; and
2. In the event that the decision-maker concedes a single ground (and a notice party contests that ground), the default will be a modularised hearing on the conceded ground, with a default maximum of 5,000 words per party for written submissions. If the notice party is contending that the conceded ground, if made out, results in a severable decision such that the balance can stand (assuming that no further infirmity emerges in the module II), this issue must be dealt with in advance in written submissions.
3. The court will give as much priority as is reasonably feasible to urgent interlocutory applications such as for stays or other injunctive-type relief. Applications to strike out alleged SLAPPs at an early stage will generally be treated as urgent for procedural purposes. Urgent matters may be dealt with between listed sittings of the court and therefore in general any urgent applications should be brought to the attention of the judge in charge of the list as soon as they arise.
Parties may agree any consent order providing for variation to the schedule of directions strictly subject to the provision of all papers to the court including submissions by the deadlines referred to in this Practice Direction and guidance notes. Consent orders including consent variations of agreed timescales should be notified to the List Registrar. In the case of matters not already listed in the Legal Diary, such matters do not normally require to be listed solely for this purpose. Actual hearing dates or deadlines for submission of the statement of case cannot be varied by consent and require a specific order of the court made on foot of an oral application. Subject to submissions to the contrary and to the interests of justice, the default position will be that:
1. in the light of Heather Hill Management Company CLG & Anor v. An Bord Pleanála and others [2022] IESC 43, [2022] 2 I.L.R.M. 313, [2022] 11 JIC 1104, (Murray J.) opposing parties are strongly encouraged to confirm the application of costs protection by return, as soon as given notice of the proceedings, to avoid unnecessary delay;
2. any application for costs protection should be dealt with as a first item of business, if so requested by the party seeking such protection, before costs are incurred;
3. subject to the issue of costs protection, urgent applications will be given such priority as is reasonably feasible, in particular issues regarding stays or interlocutory injunctive relief and applications to strike out alleged SLAPPs at an early stage;
4. generally, issues regarding stays, injunctions discovery/disclosure, cross-examination or modularisation must be dealt with as they arise in advance of the hearing;
5. issues regarding objections to amendment of pleadings, setting aside leave, standing, capacity, or extension of time may be dealt with in advance of the hearing if the court so orders or if a party so requests; and
6. in the absence of such an order or request, such latter issues may be capable of being dealt with on a basis that facilitates the progress of the case without prejudice to any argument that the opposing parties may make and that postpones until the substantive hearing any argument on any contested issue thereby raised.
Where costs protection is in dispute, the procedure will be as follows:

the attention of parties is drawn to the procedure in Clancy & Anor v. An Bord Pleanala & Ors [2023] IEHC 233, [2023] 5 JIC 0803 para 26, the practical effect of which is that the determination of a question as to whether costs-protection applies will be costs-protected in favour of any party claiming such protection, and if a party wishes to dispute that, any summary hearing as to the arguability of costs protection will itself be costs-protected in any event;
if no arguable point can be identified, then there would be no costs protection for the proceedings, but there would be no order as to costs of the summary hearing (absent abuse of process etc.);
if an arguable point can be identified at the summary hearing, then the applicant will have the benefit of full costs protection for the (second and full) hearing of whether costs protection applies to the proceedings; but in that hearing, the applicant would have to demonstrate a legal entitlement to such protection rather than just arguable grounds for that; and
if at the full hearing of the costs protection claim, the applicant failed to make out such a claim, then there would be no costs protection for the proceedings, but there would be no order as to costs of the full hearing of the costs protection claim (absent abuse of process etc.).

(20) Papers to be Lodged prior to Seeking Date

Any party who wishes to obtain a date for any motion, interlocutory matter or substantive hearing (other than for a short matter that is being dealt with by an individual judge within the list) must complete a form set out in guidance notes and complete any steps set out in the form or indicate in what respects those remain outstanding. The form must be emailed in Word format to the List Registrar and judicial assistant to the Judge in Charge of the List.
If matters are not in order per the checklist, the parties shall draw that to the court’s attention by oral submission prior to applying for a date. Where the case concerns a challenge to an act of elected members of a local authority, the authority shall explicitly inform the court and the other parties prior to a date being fixed whether the members have given express authorisation for the defence of the proceedings under s. 153(2) of the Local Government Act 2001. The court will then consider the appropriate steps if any in the light of such information and of the position of the parties.
The Core Book to be submitted electronically for the hearing following close of submissions should be limited to the essential documents and insofar as it contains materials other than pleadings, should be limited to documents already formally exhibited in the proceedings. Where it becomes apparent at the core book preparation stage that a document that should have been put before the court was not so exhibited, the parties shall endeavour to agree a reasonable and transparent solution and in default of agreement shall apply to the court as soon as practicable. The core book shall contain the following:

the (latest amended) SOG;
any inspector’s report;
any impugned decision;
the order granting leave;
(latest amended) SOOs; and
any other particularly significant document that the parties wish to include in the core book.

If the papers are not uploaded by the deadlines set by the court, the court may on the application of a party not in default or motu proprio vacate any hearing date already assigned or downgrade it to a provisional date only subject to further directions, and may consider an appropriate order as to costs implications.

(21) Fixing of date for hearing (expedited and standard procedure) & designation of document management party

The party having carriage of the proceedings (if represented), i.e., the applicant in judicial review proceedings, shall be the document management party for the purposes of the proceedings unless the parties otherwise agree. The functions of document management party shall not be carried out by a party in relation to a particular stage of the case (e.g. a CJEU reference) in which that party is not participating.
All other parties shall co-operate with the reasonable requests of the document management party as to the completion of its tasks. The document management party shall prepare the first draft of documents such as the statement of case or other documents to be agreed.
The document management party shall endeavour to ensure that the ShareFile folder is correctly set up and populated with all papers in the proceedings, and that files are correctly constituted, named and assigned to the appropriate folder, as well as co-ordinate the preparation of any documents to be agreed, particularly a statement of case.
The statement of case document shall be a Word document which contains an agreed (or where not agreed, setting out the alternative positions on a given point) narrative statement (in plain text, not tables such as chronological columnal arrangements) of the following:
1. details of the outcome of any previous potentially relevant judgments in litigation between the parties, giving neutral and other citations in each case;
2. the facts in a chronological narrative – this should be in numbered paragraphs in full sentences and not in a table, staccato bullet points, tabbed form or other bespoke arrangement;
3. the procedural history of the matter in a chronological narrative as well as any factual developments following the commencement of the proceedings, to be outlined at the appropriate point of the chronological narrative of the procedural history – again this should be in numbered paragraphs in full sentences as with the factual narrative;
4. the legislative/ EU law provisions under which relief is sought or governing that relief, giving hyperlinks to the revised Acts or formal or informal consolidated version;
5. the preliminary issues if any and a short summary of the parties’ respective positions on these;
6. details of any reliefs or grounds on the pleadings that are not being pursued;
7. a ground-by-ground or (in non-JR proceedings) issue-by-issue summary of the submissions of each party, giving about 1 or 2 paragraphs per ground/issue to broadly summarise each party’s case – this is intended as a general summary and does not prejudice the pleaded grounds of challenge or opposition, so omission of a point from the summary does not constitute abandonment of such a point; and
8. in the event of any request for a reference to the CJEU, a statement of any proposed question(s).
Where any application for a date is to be mentioned to the court, other than a short motion being dealt with by an individual judge, application should be made to the Judge in Charge of the List unless otherwise directed. Such an application whether in the LFD or otherwise must be accompanied by a completed form as set out in guidance notes. Parties should proceed on the basis that an application for a date, or for priority or an expedited hearing, will be treated as not properly made if the form is materially incomplete.
The purpose of the LFD is to ensure that the need for expeditious hearings for cases generally is balanced with the need to ensure that sufficient dates remain available to create flexibility to accommodate specific cases that require immediate or urgent hearing.
Dates will be available as follows:
1. If any matter requires a contested hearing, other than one suitable for the end of the List on a Monday, then a listing on or commencing on a Tuesday should normally be sought.
2. Save where the court so orders in exceptional circumstances, dates will not be given on a provisional basis.
3. Dates will be assigned on either a standard or an expedited procedure.
  Standard procedure
4. The standard procedure will apply as a default to all cases other than those defaulting to the expedited procedure, but any party in a standard case may apply for the expedited procedure.
5. In the standard procedure, a case will be adjourned to the relevant list to fix dates on its first mention date (in the absence of any requirement for more specific action by the court in the interim). A date can then be applied for in the relevant LFD.
6. A date will not be declined at the LFD on the sole ground that papers are not complete, provided that there is a reasonable likelihood of papers being complete in accordance with an order or directions made or to be made to that effect.
7. A party will be disqualified from applying for priority in a LFD unless that party also applies for the expedited procedure.
8. The time allocated to a standard substantive hearing will normally be a maximum of 2 to 3 days at the discretion of the judge. In general, if two or more cases are to be heard together, a maximum of 3 to 4 days will be provided at the discretion of the judge. The ultimate decision on duration is with the court.
9. The time for the hearing of a conceded ground, or for leave on notice, or interlocutory or consequential motions or applications like costs or remittal will not normally exceed 2 hours.
10. In the absence of the court affording priority to any given proceedings, available dates will generally be allocated to cases in record number order.
  Expedited procedure
11. The expedited procedure will apply as a default to:

Proceedings alleged to be SLAPPs;
SID cases;
challenges to projects within the renewable energy directive; and
AIE cases.

That procedure requires parties to agree more accelerated timelines for papers. The applicant may also deliver a replying written submission not exceeding 5,000 words given the shorter timescale of the hearing.
The procedure involves a hearing with a normal maximum of 2 hours on a Monday or 3.5 hours on a Tuesday (as a default, or if directed by the court, another day). The final allocation of time is for the court.
The expedited procedure will be afforded to any given case (including default cases) only at the discretion of the court having regard to judicial capacity and workload at any given time. It will not apply in any case where cross-examination has been ordered. The intention is that the expedited procedure will only be applied to a minority of cases at any given time.
An application for the expedited procedure can be made at any time in the proceedings (including prior to the grant of leave) on notice to the List Registrar and the other parties. Such an application need not await the LFD.

In determining priority the court will have regard to the relevant circumstances including the following:

the desirability of a speedy priority hearing of a second or subsequent module in proceedings that have been modularised and where a prior module has already been dealt with, and in that regard the default position will be that the court will fix a date for a subsequent module on the first mention date after the giving of judgment in any given module; and
the need for particular priority to hearing cases regarding decisions that are particularly economically significant or are alleged to be particularly environmentally impactful, or regarding developments by public authorities, disputes between public authorities, or the validity of instruments of general application where the case cannot be disposed of on the basis of administrative law issues.

Where a non-priority matter is listed in a particular LFD following the filing of opposition and fails to get a date, it shall normally be adjourned to the following LFD and so on unless and until an application for priority or the expedited procedure is made or a date becomes available in the standard procedure.
Where proceedings raise a point that is or becomes pending in other proceedings either on appeal or before the CJEU, the parties shall notify the court as soon as possible of the issue (irrespective of whether a date has been fixed for hearing) and of their proposals, for modularisation or otherwise, to avoid cutting across the appellate or European process.
Where such proposals were not made prior to the date being fixed, any party aware of such potential overlap shall inform the court of the matter and make proposals for modularisation as soon as possible after becoming aware of the potential overlap, and in any event not later than at the hearing.
Following the fixing of a hearing date, the matter will be assigned to a particular judge in advance of the given hearing date. Once so assigned, any further mention dates (including call-over) will normally be before that judge.

(22) Written Submissions

Written submissions shall be dated at the end, and shall contain at the end the names of any legal practitioners settling them.
All written and (if the court so requests) oral submissions must follow the sequence of clearly dividing domestic law issues, EU law issues and validity issues as set out in relation to core grounds in this Practice Direction, and shall address those issues in the order of those headings, unless otherwise directed. To facilitate a default/ provisional order as to costs, in the event that a party intends to seek a particular costs order independently of the outcome of the hearing on the basis of events or matters prior to the hearing, submissions should also expressly deal with any such issues.
Any party seeking a reference under Art. 267 TFEU should so indicate in their submissions. The wording of the questions must be contained either in the submissions or in the statement of case.
The following provisions of PD HC97 shall not apply to the List:

paragraph 3(c)(v) (word limit), and in lieu thereof, written submissions in the List will have a word limit of 10,000 words long not including footnotes or annexes, unless otherwise ordered, which will apply to substantive submissions and replies to issue papers and similar documents, but a word limit of 5,000 words will apply to submissions on interlocutory / consequential matters and to an applicant’s replying submissions in the expedited procedure – the court may authorise extensions in appropriate cases to such limits;
paragraph 5(g) (limit on numbers of authorities that may be included in the book of authorities); and
paragraph 6 (issue papers).

Where written submissions prepared by legal practitioners (“substantive written submissions”) are to be relied on by a party, such party shall have regard to Practice Direction HC101 as amended in order to avoid, if possible, the need for preparing a separate version of written submissions for public release.
It shall be a standard term of any final order in the List in an application in which substantive written submissions were relied on that, pursuant to and/or consistent with Practice Direction HC101:

a copy of any written submissions relied upon be filed at the Central Office within 14 days of the Order;
such copy shall comply with the requirements of the Practice Direction aforesaid and be entitled “Written Submissions for Public Release”; and
the Written Submissions for Public Release be made available to members of the public if requested in accordance with the conditions set out in the Practice Direction.

Where the written submissions for public release involve redaction or other amendment of the substantive written submissions, the party delivering such redacted or amended version shall confirm to the court that the submissions correspond to the substantive written submissions relied on at the hearing.

(23) Authorities for the Hearing

As regards references to authorities in submissions, if an authority is available on the internet, the authority should be hyperlinked in the written submissions. Links to any material including caselaw, directives, domestic legislation or otherwise should include a link to a version of the material in html rather than PDF, if available. Citations should include reference to their reported form, if reported. A party is not precluded from relying on an authority referred to in submissions merely because it is not included in the List of Authorities to be Referred to at the Hearing.
As regards copies of authorities being uploaded, books of authorities should not be prepared for the court or uploaded. The only authorities that can be uploaded to ShareFile are those included in submissions or in the List of Authorities Intended to be Opened at the Hearing that are not available by way of a link. Thus a copy of any authority referred to in submissions not available on the internet should be uploaded when the submissions are delivered.
As regards a list of authorities, the document management party shall co-ordinate the preparation of a List of Authorities Intended to be Opened at the Hearing. Each party may include not more than a hard limit of 15 unique authorities which it intends to open at the hearing. The omission of an authority from this list does not preclude it being relied on, but any additional authorities not mentioned in the list or in written submissions can only be referred to at the hearing if they post-date the list of authorities or with leave of the court (but other parties should be notified as soon as possible of the intention to do so).

(24) The Running of the Hearing

The parties shall before trial endeavour to agree the division of the allocated envelope of hearing time as between them. But such decision is ultimately a matter for the court, and in so deciding the court will consider but will not be bound by any agreement or views of the parties. The normal approach is that the applicants collectively will have an equal time to the opposing parties (i.e., respondents and notice parties) collectively, and that time will be divided equally within such allocation, as between particular parties on the same side of the case. For example, for a 3 day hearing, the total time envelope would be 12 hours (3 days x a 4 hour court day) which would be divided into 6 hours for each side. An example of a possible division might be 5 hours for the applicant’s opening submission, 3 hours for the non-State respondent, 2 hours for the State respondents, 1 hour for a notice party, and 1 hour for the applicant’s reply (which equates to 6 hours on each side in total). Proportionate time periods would apply for shorter time allocations.
It will not be necessary to open papers formally, and parties can approach hearings on the basis that papers will be taken as read. Subject to the interests of justice and submissions in any given case, the court’s general approach will be to conduct the hearing of the domestic and EU law issues on the assumption for the sake of argument that all relevant legislation and policy documents are valid. If any challenge is made to a measure of general application, whether legislative or policy document, and where modularisation has been ordered, any grounds of such challenge must normally first be addressed in the main module(s) by first seeking a conforming interpretation. Where the court applies a domestic measure of general application on this assumption, that does not in any way prejudice the obligation of the court to set aside the domestic measure if its application would not give full effect to EU law. Rather the process of assuming the validity of the measure first will normally achieve the purpose of identifying whether the proceedings can be resolved without getting to that stage. Hence if a conforming interpretation of a measure produces a result whereby full effect is given to EU law, the question of setting aside the measure does not arise.
Parties are reminded that time allocations for oral submissions at any substantive hearing must not be taken to be fully guaranteed and may be reduced to accommodate, for example, unanticipated interruptions, so as to finish by the deadline specified in advance. Parties must therefore plan to leave some margin for such matters when preparing their oral submissions. Parties are therefore encouraged to minimise preambular discussions and to lead with their major points in oral submissions, bearing in mind that they court may request such submissions to follow a given sequence, such as domestic-EU-legislative validity. The time limits are maxima and not minima, and accordingly parties are encouraged to complete their oral submissions in a lesser time where possible.
The normal position in practice is that trials will take place on affidavit without cross-examination. A notice to cross-examine may only be served by agreement or by leave of the court. In the absence of agreement, the court should be advised of any issue in this regard as soon as the issue materialises so that any leave sought to serve notice to cross-examine can be decided upon well in advance of any proposed trial. If leave is granted, the default direction will be that any cross-examination will be dealt with as part of a unitary trial prior to legal submissions. The court may direct the parties to attempt to agree an issue paper describing the broad headings/issues for cross-examination and the documents to be relied on in cross-examination. In default of agreement the Court may settle any issue paper so directed. Generally, if such an issue paper is directed, the parties can expect to be confined to such issues in cross-examination subject to the court’s discretion to permit otherwise in the interests of justice. Cross-examination must be conducted within the time estimate directed for the case, and any remaining time will be divided equally between both sides for purposes of legal submissions. Unless special leave of the court is obtained, no documents may be put in cross-examination unless already exhibited in the case.

(25) Judgments and Orders

Reserved judgments will by default be delivered electronically and published on courts.ie, and parties should not attend in court for that purpose unless otherwise ordered.
In the interests of expedition in preparation and delivery of judgments, and given the multiplicity of issues that are in practice raised in proceedings in the List, the court will not necessarily decide all issues in the proceedings for the purposes of any given judgment if the court considers that the matter can properly be disposed of on the basis of one issue or some only of the issues.
Where the court delivers a judgment on any matter, the court may either in the judgment or as soon as may be thereafter, do one or more of the following:
1. indicate that in the absence of application to the contrary in a specified manner (such as on foot of a written legal submission) within a specified time, the order on foot of the judgment will be perfected on the basis of a specified provisional or default costs order;
2. provide as part of any such default order for any stay on such costs (in the case of interlocutory costs, normally being a stay on execution as opposed to adjudication of the costs, until the determination of the proceedings); and
3. provide for the matter to be listed again on a specified date or a date to be notified by the List Registrar (normally on the second sitting Monday following the date of the delivery of the judgment, or such other time as may be directed) with a view to confirming whether any such application is being made.
Final orders in proceedings will not be perfected until such time as the court specifies, or in default of such order, 14 days after a reserved judgment (if applicable) has been published.
As regards consequential issues generally:
1. If an applicant for a permission seeks remittal on a reasoned basis in its written submissions in the event of the decision being quashed, and such decision is quashed, the court may indicate its provisional view on remittal in the relevant judgment.
2. If during the period of 14 days any issues are raised with the court, through the List Registrar, regarding, inter alia, remittal, the form of the order, costs, leave to appeal or a stay, the order will not be perfected (unless otherwise directed) until the determination of such issues. Where such issues arise, parties should correspond inter se and make reasonable efforts to agree the terms of any appropriate consequential orders, e.g., the point in time to which the matter should be remitted, if that is proposed. Parties should submit the text of any agreed order to the court in advance of the next mention date, or in default of agreement should correspond with the court indicating the precise orders they are seeking.
3. In the event of a contest, the parties should, as a default, have one week each for written submissions with a view to having a consequential hearing as soon as possible to enable the perfection of the final order.
4. Any proposed costs order in favour of a costs-protected party would not be perfected until any consequential issues including remittal issues are determined.
The default position regarding perfection of orders will be that:
1. the procedural parts of a modular order will be perfected as they arise e.g., dates for hearing, directions for submissions;
2. the substantive part of any order disposing of a particular module will not be perfected until the order in the last module is made and perfected so that all substantive aspects are dealt with in a single order;
3. if modular orders are perfected in error these will normally be set aside on being brought to the court’s attention, and combined in a single final order; and
4. accordingly any party wishing to appeal a particular order proposed on the conclusion of a module would await the perfection of the final order before doing so.
Any possible issues regarding errors that may require correction or issues requiring clarification in orders or judgments should be notified by email to the List Registrar as soon as possible after any party becomes aware of such issues. The court welcomes any such issues being drawn to its attention as early as possible.
On the conclusion of the case at High Court level the ShareFile folder may be deleted forthwith thereafter. Any party that wishes the folder to be retained for any reason should contact the List Registrar within 28 days of the perfection of the final order of the court. If the folder can be deleted earlier by agreement parties should advise the List Registrar.

SCHEDULE 1 – DEFAULT TERMS OF LEAVE ORDER

The default terms of a leave order will be:

in the event that an extension of time is expressly sought as a relief in the SOG and in addition the applicant orally requests an extension of time and furthermore satisfies the court to the appropriate standard at the ex parte stage by evidence and/or submission as appropriate that the statutory criteria for such an order, including O. 84, r. 21(3) RSC and section 50(8) of the 2000 Act, are met, that time be extended (if the court is so satisfied) without prejudice to any point that may be raised by the opposing parties);
in the event that the court is of the opinion that liberty to file an amended SOG, should be granted, and to compliance with the procedure as set out in this Practice Direction, and subject to the court being satisfied of compliance with the statutory requirements, that liberty to file such amended SOG be granted, without prejudice to any point that might have been be raised by the opposing parties;
subject to the court being satisfied of compliance with the statutory requirements including those under s. 50A of the 2000 Act if applicable, and in cases to which it applies subject to the court being satisfied as to each ground meeting the threshold for the grant of leave under O. 84, and subject to the court being satisfied as to the appropriateness of any given relief or ground (and subject to an order in any given case where the pleadings only partly comply with such requirements and thus to an order excluding one or more specific reliefs or grounds from the grant of leave), that leave be granted for the reliefs sought at section (d) of the (amended) SOG on the grounds set out at section (e), without prejudice to any point that the opposing parties could have made;
the originating Notice of Motion for judicial review be returnable for 09:30 on the sitting Monday that is 2 weeks after the date of grant of leave;
service of the Notice of Motion be effected within 7 days of perfection of the order;
service of other papers be effected within 7 days from the grant of leave (other than papers already furnished prior to the grant of leave, in respect of which formal service will be waived or service actually effected will be deemed good unless any party applies to have service re-effected and the court so orders);
in the case of any opposing party that is normally represented by the CSSO (particularly, Ireland, the Attorney General, or a Minister of the Government), service be on the CSSO on behalf of such parties;
if service is effected in accordance with the order, costs will be reserved; and if service is not so effected, the costs of the leave application will not be recoverable unless the court expressly so orders;
the court’s default directions schedule will be directed on the return date unless the parties agree otherwise and notify the List Registrar, or unless the court otherwise orders (such default directions are specified below);
in accordance with O. 63A r. 31 RSC and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court, service of papers shall be as follows (subject to any application by any party at any stage and to the power of the court to ensure justice in the event that such service was not effective):
applicants must share an email address for service with all respondents and notice parties who provide an email address for that purpose;
respondents and notice parties should provide email addresses for service purposes;
in the event that a respondent or notice party fails to provide such an email address, service is to be effected by sending the originating notice of motion or other originating pleading by registered post and simultaneously or thereafter by informing the party concerned by registered post that all documents for service will be uploaded to ShareFile, and that contact should be made with the List Registrar to access such ShareFile folder;
where a party is required to serve, or otherwise intends to rely on, any document, that party shall email a copy to the other parties that have provided email addresses, and upload a copy to ShareFile.
the opposing parties shall indicate in writing in advance of the return date their position on whether and to what extent special costs rules will apply to the proceedings and that, in the event of agreement, a draft order by the court noting the terms of such agreement be forwarded to the List Registrar for perfection on behalf of the court;
if a stay is properly grounded on evidence adduced on affidavit and is sought by the applicant (which may be orally during the hearing of the leave application, because interim or interlocutory relief does not need to be expressly claimed as a relief in the SOG, although it does require to be expressly addressed by affidavit), and if the court is satisfied in accordance with the applicable principles and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the applicant that it is appropriate to grant a stay, and bearing in mind the principle, where applicable, that proceedings are not to be prohibitively expensive, the implementation of any individual decision impugned in the proceedings or if applicable the processing of any specified application or appeal shall be stayed with effect from notification of the stay to the relevant party, with liberty to effect such notification by email or telephone, until the determination of the application for judicial review or until further order or until the stay shall have lapsed by reason of the applicant’s failure to serve an originating Notice of Motion for Judicial Review, without prejudice to the right of any affected party to apply to the court on notice in relation to the stay (noting for this purpose that while the court may if appropriate stay an individual decision or a particular process it will not except in extraordinary circumstances stay a measure of general application such as a provision of a development plan, as to do so could create a planning outcome, in breach of the separation of powers, contrary to what has been determined by the relevant decision-maker, in the event that applications continue to be processed under non-stayed parts of the measure of general application concerned); and
there be liberty to apply.

SCHEDULE 2 – DEFAULT DIRECTIONS SCHEDULE

The default directions schedule will be as follows :

service of the originating Notice of Motion for Judicial Review within 1 week of perfection of the order;
1 week from the grant of leave for the applicant to serve all other parties with other papers where such service has not already been effected;
6 further weeks for any SOO and affidavits by non-State respondents [3 weeks for the expedited procedure];
if there are State respondents, 2 further weeks for any SOO and affidavits by State respondents unless the case against such respondents has been modularised [1 week for the expedited procedure];
1 further week for any SOO and affidavits by any notice parties;
3 further weeks for any replying affidavits by the applicant [1 week for the expedited procedure];
2 further weeks for any final replying affidavits by any other party [1 week for the expedited procedure];
the document management party to have 2 weeks [1 week for the expedited procedure] to co-ordinate the regularisation of the ShareFile folder in strict accordance with the file naming conventions and folder requirements of the Practice Direction and all other applicable requirements, to enable all submissions to have common file and page references;
in the case of the expedited procedure, such further accelerated directions for submissions as are set out in guidance notes from time to time, but as a default with 1 week for each of the steps set out below, and the matter to be given a hearing date that is next following 11 days from the completion of the statement of case;
in the case of the standard procedure, the matter to appear in the LFD that next follows the expiry of the aforesaid 2 week period (that is, 18 weeks following from the grant of leave) (with the remaining sub-paragraphs applicable to the standard procedure only);
by 2 weeks before non-State submissions are due, the applicant to deliver written legal submissions;
By 2 weeks before the State submissions are due, non-State respondents to deliver written legal submissions;
By 2 weeks before the notice party submissions, if there are State respondents, such respondents to deliver written legal submissions;
By 1 week before the date of completion of papers in the next following step, notice parties to deliver written legal submissions;
By 1 week before the callover, the document management party to co-ordinate the agreement and uploading to ShareFile of:
1. the core book;
2. a List of Authorities Intended to be Opened at the Hearing (with hyperlinks);
3. copies of any authorities referred to in submissions or the List of Authorities Intended to be Opened at the Hearing that are not linkable; and
4. the statement of case.
the call-over be the second sitting Monday prior to the week of the hearing. In the event of non-compliance at that stage the court may give directions as necessary up to and including the cancellation of the hearing date with costs consequences for any party in default, subject to the not-prohibitively-expensive rule; and
there be liberty to apply including liberty to apply for a date earlier than the LFD in which the matter has been listed, if the expedited procedure is being sought or once any opposition has been delivered.

In the foregoing default directions:
“affidavits” includes exhibits and copies of exhibits shall be delivered within the deadlines for the associated affidavits; and
“weeks” includes weeks in September but otherwise excludes vacations.

For the avoidance of doubt, no delivery or preparation of papers will be required during August.

SCHEDULE 3 – PLEADING REQUIREMENTS IN THE LIST

Reference however phrased in any judgment or order to the pleading requirements in the List shall include the requirements of this Schedule.
All pleadings filed on or after the commencement of this Practice Direction shall be entitled as set out in paragraph 4.

Statements of Grounds and Grounding Affidavits

Format

The SOG should be as short as possible. In general it should not exceed 10,000 words. The court can permit an extension of that limit. It must follow the headings / numbering used in the Rules of Court, Appendix T, form No. 13 as follows:

Applicant’s name: [Note this section must be headed (a) not (1), (i) etc., and so on]
Applicant’s address:
Applicant’s description:
Relief sought:
Grounds upon which such relief is sought:
Name and registered place of business of solicitors for Applicant.

Parties

If non-implementation or inadequate implementation of any properly transposed or directly effective EU law obligation is pleaded, the entities responsible for implementation should be named as respondents.
If non-transposition or inadequate transposition of any EU law obligation is pleaded, Ireland and the Attorney General should be named as respondents (it is not necessary to name the Government of Ireland or individual Ministers).
If the validity or ECHR compatibility of any primary or secondary legislation, or measure of general application (such as a guideline) is impugned, Ireland and the Attorney General should be named as respondents (it is not necessary to name the Government of Ireland or individual Ministers).
If a decision of a local or other authority or body is challenged or one of their acts is put in question (for example, a decision to extend a permission, or to extend a local area plan), the authority should be named as a respondent and not as a notice party.
Where the proceedings seek an order affecting an interest in lands (for example by challenging the validity of a permission or of a provision in a development plan regarding such lands), and the notice party is not the full owner of the land concerned or all of it, any other identifiable owners of the land (particularly those who have consented to the application for the permission as part of the application process) should be named as notice parties, save where the court otherwise directs or where the number of such other owners makes this impracticable.

Reliefs generally

Pleadings which claim an excessive number of reliefs and/or involve an excessive number of grounds are inappropriate. Accordingly, SOGs should not normally claim relief that is in substance merely repetitive of the primary relief sought, and nor should grounds be pleaded as repetitive reformulations.
Reliefs in relation to documents or instruments should be addressed to the documents or instruments themselves rather than to any abstract or prior decision to make, adopt, publish or promulgate the instrument (for example – certiorari of (or declaration regarding) a document, not certiorari of the decision to adopt, or to publish, the document, if these steps were caried out by the same legal entities). If exceptionally the respondent has decided to make a document or instrument prior to the date of issue of proceedings but has not actually done so as of such date, the appropriate relief should be certiorari of the document or instrument when made (and if necessary an order requiring the respondent to make a record of the decision for the purpose of having it quashed). If exceptionally the entity making the document is a different entity from that endorsing or adopting the document, then reliefs in relation to both decisions (i.e., the decision to make by entity A and the decision to adopt by entity B) can be claimed.

Substantive relief

Apart from interim reliefs (matters such as stays or extensions of time as set out below), the reliefs section only needs to claim substantive final reliefs. Interlocutory relief should not be included apart from an optional general formula as set out below.
Further and other relief should normally be expressly claimed.
Costs are a substantive relief and should be expressly claimed.

Interim or interlocutory relief

Interim orders, including where intended to be sought at the date on which leave is sought (such as an interim injunction or stay), or orders that are preconditions for the grant of leave in the first place (such as an extension of time) must be expressly claimed as reliefs in the SOG.
Interlocutory reliefs do not need to be, and should not be claimed in a SOG. Omission of any such relief does not in any way prejudice the entitlement of an applicant to seek such relief at a later stage whether by motion or otherwise as permitted by the court. An applicant may however for the avoidance of doubt include a relief along the following lines: “Such interlocutory relief as the court may order, including interlocutory relief as defined by the Practice Direction applicable to the List.”
Such a general claim shall be taken to include a claim for the following:
1. such interlocutory directions as may be appropriate;
2. liberty to amend pleadings or to file further pleadings;
3. liberty to file affidavits or further affidavits;
4. interlocutory stays or injunctions;
5. interlocutory orders for disclosure of information or material whether pursuant to the duty on opposing parties to place their cards face up or otherwise;
6. discovery;
7. an order referring a question to the CJEU (not being a question that requires to be pleaded as a substantive relief such as the validity of an act of the EU itself);
8. costs;
9. orders or declarations as to costs protection;
10. liberty to apply; and
11. any other interlocutory relief that the court has jurisdiction to grant.

Mandatory relief

If mandatory relief is sought in the statement of grounds, the applicant should prior to issuing the proceedings write a pre-action letter calling on the respondent to take any specified step, providing information necessary for that purpose, and afford a reasonable opportunity for a response (the default position being that a reasonable opportunity means a minimum of 7 days prior to the issue of the proceedings).

Declaratory relief

Specific declaratory relief should be sought in the following situations:
1. where it is alleged that any provision of primary or secondary legislation or a document of general application (such as a guideline) is invalid, whether by reference to vires, national law, the Constitution, EU law, or otherwise;
2. where it is alleged that any provision of primary or secondary legislation or a document of general application (such as a guideline) is incompatible with ECHR provisions for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003;
3. where it is alleged that the State has failed to transpose at all an element of EU law;
4. where it is alleged that the purported transposition by the State of an element of EU law is inadequate, incomplete or defective;
5. where an applicant seeks a declaration as to specific procedural rights, which may include a declaration that special costs rules apply, whether under s. 50B of the 2000 Act, s. 3 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, the Aarhus Convention interpretative obligation in EU law, or otherwise (however if the issue is one related to interlocutory relief that does not require a final order in the form of a declaration, the relief does not have to be sought in the SOG and may be sought by interlocutory motion or in such manner as the court directs); and
6. where an applicant pleads a breach of any legal requirement that did not in itself impinge on the applicant’s engagement with the process, for example breach of public participation procedures including notification requirements (such as a failure by the decision-maker to facilitate public participation or to make adequate information available) in circumstances that did not in itself impair the engagement with the process by the applicant specifically (and thus that might not necessarily be grounds for certiorari) but that nonetheless might warrant being marked with declaratory relief (such relief can be pleaded as being without prejudice to the applicant’s claim for certiorari if the applicant wishes to argue the issue under that heading also).
Where the validity or ECHR-compatibility of legislation or an instrument or document of general application is challenged, declaratory relief should be the primary relief sought in that respect. Applicants normally can plead such relief as the only relief in respect of such grounds (on the basis that declaratory relief in respect of general instruments can be sought as and when such measures are applied to particular situations).
Specific declaratory relief is not generally appropriate in the following situations:
1. where the declaration is in substance a reformulation of the claim for certiorari or amounts to a claim that one or more of the grounds for certiorari are well founded; for example, if the main claim is certiorari on the grounds of lack of vires, an additional claim for a declaration that the decision is ultra vires adds nothing. Practitioners should have regard to the principle that duplicative relief is not normally granted, and that therefore, with limited exceptions as set out above, declarations are generally redundant if substantive relief by way of certiorari or mandamus is granted, and are inappropriate if that substantive relief is refused;
2. where declarations merely set out the grounds for the other reliefs claimed. Generally, any claim for declaratory relief should not itemise the specific errors concerned. That should be done in the grounds; and
3. where the applicant is seeking clarification or confirmation as to the meaning of some legal provision or doctrine; generally any such clarifications, if the court thinks it appropriate to provide them, will be provided in the judgment of the court without the necessity for a specific declaration.
If or to the extent that an applicant wishes to claim declaratory relief in some respect not covered by the foregoing, an applicant may plead a fall-back relief along the lines of: “Such declaration(s) of the legal rights and/or legal position of the applicant and persons similarly situated and/or of the legal duties and/or legal position of the respondent as the court considers appropriate”, or a relief to the like effect.

Grounds

Section (e) of the SOG should be divided into the following parts (further detail is set out below):
1. Core Grounds;
2. Particulars of Grounds;
3. Jurisdictional criteria; and
4. Factual Grounds.
The Core grounds shall commence with the number 1 (in Arabic numerals), and the numbering of grounds shall increase by single integers thereafter. The numbering shall be continuous throughout all sections of the core grounds, particulars of grounds, jurisdictional criteria, and factual grounds, and shall not recommence at 1 in any sub-heading. Sub-numberings such as 1.1 etc shall be avoided. Any glossaries or other similar apparatus shall be placed after the end of the factual grounds and not at the start.

Core Grounds

If there are more than two pages of legal grounds, the first part should be headed “Core Grounds” and should set out the summary grounds of challenge in numbered paragraphs, starting with 1 and in the format specified in the Appendix below. It may not exceed 2 pages. A template form of core grounds is set out below and may be supplemented or updated in Guidance Notes to be issued by the Judge in Charge of the List.

TEMPLATE CORE GROUNDS
(Delete as applicable/ use any necessary modifications)
(Each ground should be in “ratio” format as if it was a point in a headnote)

PART 1 - CORE GROUNDS

(1) DOMESTIC LAW GROUNDS

The impugned decision is invalid in that it contravenes Article X of the Constitution by failing to (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.
The (define the decision) (“the impugned decision”) is invalid in that it contravenes s. X of the .... Act or reg. Y of [regulations] Z by failing to (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below
The impugned decision is invalid in that it is (unreasonable/ disproportionate/ lacks reasons etc.) insofar as it ..... (indicate broad heading of the administrative law infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.
The impugned decision is invalid in that it is incompatible with the State’s obligations under art X of the ECHR, a Convention provision for the purposes of s. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, by failing to (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.

(2) EU LAW GROUNDS

Validity of the decision

The impugned decision is invalid in that it contravenes art. X of directive Y being a provision that is [transposed by s. X of the .... Act and/or (as appropriate) directly effective against the State and its emanations], by failing to (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.

Non-transposition

The [State respondents] have wholly failed to transpose art. X of directive Y by failing to (indicate broad heading of the infirmity – for example, specify any conservation objectives in respect of species Z at European Site A, or because art. X (or a specified part of it) of directive Y has not been transposed into law), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.
The [State respondents] have failed adequately to transpose art. X of directive Y by (indicate broad heading of the infirmity – for example, that the purported transposition set out in section B of Act C does not achieve the objective required by art. X of the directive because .... ), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.

(3) LEGISLATIVE VALIDITY GROUNDS

Ultra vires

Regulation .... of the (name of instrument) (S.I. No. ....) and/or paragraph .... of the .... Guidelines is ultra vires and invalid in that it contravenes s. X of the .... Act, by providing/ failing to provide ... (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.

Unconstitutionality

Section .... of the .... Act.... and/or regulation .... of the (name of instrument) (S.I. No. ....) and/or paragraph .... of the .... Guidelines is invalid in that it contravenes Article X of the Constitution by providing/ failing to provide ... (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.

Invalidity by reference to EU law

Section .... of the .... Act.... and/or regulation .... of the (name of instrument) (S.I. No. ....) and/or paragraph .... of the .... Guidelines is invalid in that it contravenes art. X of directive Y being a provision that is [transposed by s. X of the .... Act and/or (as appropriate) directly effective against the State and its emanations], by providing/ failing to provide ... (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.

ECHR-compatibility

Section .... of the .... Act.... and/or regulation .... of the (name of instrument) (S.I. No. ....) and/or paragraph .... of the .... Guidelines is incompatible with the State’s obligations under art X of the ECHR, a Convention provision for the purposes of s. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, by providing/ failing to provide ... (indicate broad heading of the infirmity), further particulars of which are set out in Part 2 below.

The Core Grounds should be divided into three sub-parts (insofar as applicable) as follows (note the numbering should be consecutive throughout this section starting at 1, and should continue the numbering throughout the section rather than re-start within each sub-section below):
1. domestic law grounds (this should exclude legislative validity grounds but include any challenge to an individual decision by reference to the ECHR as incorporated by domestic law);
2. EU law grounds, excluding validity grounds but including non-transposition grounds; and
3. (Legislative) validity grounds, that is grounds regarding the validity (by reference to the Constitution or to domestic or EU law) or ECHR-compatibility of any primary or secondary legislation (such as a development plan) or any measure of general application such as a guideline.
Where reliance is placed in either the core grounds or the particulars of grounds on any provision of EU law, the relevant transposing provision of Irish law should also be cited unless legally irrelevant.
Where reliance is placed in either the core grounds or the particulars of grounds on any provision of domestic law that transposes EU law, the relevant provision of EU law should also be cited unless legally irrelevant.
Where reliance is placed on a domestic law provision that transposes an EU law obligation, the point concerned should be addressed in the EU law grounds sub-part. The domestic law sub-part should be reserved for purely domestic points with no EU dimension.
Where declarations are sought as to non-transposition or inadequate transposition, or as to validity of legislation, instruments or policy documents, appropriate grounds must be included in respect of any such declarations referring expressly to the relevant provisions of EU law, the Constitution, etc. allegedly contravened.
In particular in relation to non-transposition claims, pleas should preferably be included:
1. identifying the precise provision not transposed;
2. establishing such non-transposition by relevance to national law overall rather than any single piece of transposing legislation;
3. specifying how the non-transposition jeopardises the achievement of the aims of the directive in practice; and
4. relating the non-transposition to the particular facts of the case in question.
Likewise where any grounds are included that correspond to reliefs which require express articulation as set out above (such as lack of transposition), such reliefs must be included, so that in all cases there is a correspondence between reliefs and grounds.
Any claim in relation to transposition-type issues must clearly distinguish between claims of lack of application (that a transposed provision of EU law has not been properly applied by the decision-maker), lack of transposition (that a specific provision of EU law has not been transposed), inadequate transposition (that a purported transposing measure has been adopted and that such measure is not itself invalid but is inadequate in some specific identified way), and invalidity (that the adopted measure is invalid by reference to EU law as positively contravening some EU law obligation).
Where a point is being made that straddles more than one sub-part (for example that in some identified respect the decision is contrary to administrative law and to a directive or transposing legislation), the complaint should be split into two grounds, one being that insofar as concerns domestic law the decision is infirm by reference to the issue relied on, and the other ground relating to the issue insofar as concerns EU law including transposing legislation. Each ground should be separately addressed in the relevant sub-part. Domestic law points will be considered on the assumption that EU law does not add to what would otherwise be the domestic law position, but this assumption will be revisited in the event that the court finds it necessary to consider the issue from an EU law standpoint.

Particulars of Grounds

The next part should be headed “Particulars of Grounds” which should set out detailed sub-grounds of challenge in numbered paragraphs consisting of ascending integers in Arabic numerals, continuing the numbering sequence from the core grounds (so that if there are 12 core grounds, the first particulars ground is no. 13). Where the grounds are phrased to refer to certiorari specifically, but declaratory relief is also sought, a general ground to the effect that certiorari grounds are also relied on for declaratory relief should be included at the end of this section.
Any general wording such as that the applicant relies on the grounding affidavit or the papers generally is superfluous but if an applicant wishes to include this it should be at the end of the particulars of grounds and not in the core grounds section.

Jurisdictional criteria

The next part should be headed “Jurisdictional Criteria”, explaining how the application meets any relevant jurisdictional criteria that could reasonably be in dispute, by reference to particular identified statutory provisions or legal doctrines (e.g., standing, legal capacity in the case of an unincorporated body, exhaustion of remedies if an appeal or review mechanism exists). This should be set out in numbered paragraphs consisting of ascending integers in Arabic numerals, continuing the numbering sequence from the particulars of grounds.

Factual Grounds

The final part should be headed “Factual Grounds” and the relevant facts and matters relied on should be set out in numbered paragraphs consisting of ascending integers in Arabic numerals, continuing the numbering sequence from the jurisdictional criteria
This should include a comprehensive chronological narrative indicating the dates of each relevant factual occurrence or procedural step concerned. The “Factual grounds” section of the SOG should include, where applicable, dates of pre-application consultations, the permission application, any relevant reports/ assessments, any submissions of particular relevance to the proceedings, any inspector’s report, and of the decision.
Grounds which are in the nature of legal grounds or more appropriate for inclusion in the particulars of legal grounds ought not to be included in the section of the SOG entitled “Factual Grounds”.
Contested facts can be included in the factual grounds section as long as they are purely factual. Merely outlining or reciting provisions of documents, legislation or legal instruments can be in either the factual or legal grounds section at the option of the applicant, depending on readability. Any point that is a mixed question of fact and law should be in the legal grounds, and likewise any commentary on the facts or interpretation of their implications going beyond a mere factual recitation should be in the legal grounds.

Format

SOGs must be dated at the end and should state the names of any legal practitioners who settled them.

Statements of Opposition

An SOO should be as short as possible. In general it should not exceed 10,000 words. The court can permit an extension of that limit. SOOs must be dated at the end and must state the names of any legal practitioners who settled them.
An SOO does not need to be supported by an affidavit if no specific factual plea is made and it consists only of one or more of the following:

a traverse of any or all of the matters alleged in the statement of grounds;
a legal plea arising from facts put forward by, or documents exhibited by, an applicant; or
a legal plea arising from facts otherwise on the court record that do not require to be put in evidence (such as an objection as to time arising from the date of filing of pleadings).

In accordance with O. 84 r. 22(4) RSC, a statement of opposition that contains a positive plea that is based on evidential matters not otherwise before the court must be supported by an affidavit.
In giving effect to Order 84 r. 22(5) RSC, the requirement that the respondent should state precisely each ground of opposition, giving particulars where appropriate, and identify in respect of each such ground the facts or matters relied upon as supporting that ground, applies (unless otherwise directed) to specific grounds of opposition such as any positive legal or factual proposition relied on, or the specification of the basis for the denial of any specific legal or factual proposition advanced by the applicant. Repetitive formal denials on a point-by-point or paragraph-by-paragraph basis of claims in a SOG do not constitute separate “grounds of opposition” for this purpose and are not therefore required. It is not necessary to assert that the applicant is not entitled to relief or costs, or that the opposing party is entitled to costs.
Where possible, the SOO shall include at the outset a list (not more than two pages) of the core grounds of opposition, which shall specify the primary bases on which it is contended that relief should be refused.

SCHEDULE 4 – TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Cases in being

This Practice Direction applies to all proceedings in the List whether instituted before or after its commencement.

Hearing durations for cases already fixed

Where prior to the commencement of this Practice Direction any case has been listed for any given number of days, the court may on or at any time after such commencement review the time allocation and reduce it in line with the provisions of this Practice Direction.

The fact that a hearing date has been fixed for a case prior to the commencement of this Practice Direction does not preclude a party from seeking an earlier hearing date pursuant to the expedited procedure.

Schedules of directions

Where any case (other than one where a hearing date has already been fixed) defaults to the expedited procedure under this PD, or where a party wishes to apply for such a procedure in a standard case, the parties shall amend the schedule of directions forthwith and/or arrange for the matter to be listed.

Where existing Schedules of Directions involve mention dates following opposition or following completion of papers, these should be amended by agreement to provide for listing in the next following LFD.

Document Management Party

Where a party having carriage of the proceedings (“the applicant”) is legally represented and any party other than the applicant is the document management party for a particular case immediately before the commencement of this Practice Direction, such arrangement shall cease on such commencement and the applicant shall become the document management party, unless the parties otherwise agree on or subsequent to such commencement.

Signed:

______________
David Barniville.
President of the High Court.
Dated 19th June 2024.

Click the following links to download:

Guidance Notes .

Contact Sheet for references to the CJEU .

Certification Checklist for applying for a date .

High court

HC80	Use of cameras and electronic devices in court
HC86	Access to court files in the Superior Courts (09/04/2019)
HC90	Lodgment of a court document by non-personal delivery at the Central Office of the High Court
HC94	Covid 19 - Track & Trace
HC97	Written Submissions and Issue Papers
HC101	Access to Written Submissions
HC109	Revocation of Practice Direction HC90
HC110	Access to court files in the Superior Courts (04/02/2022)
HC111	Covid-19: Good Practice Guidance
HC112	Requirement regarding attendance at remote hearings.

HC02	Ex-parte applications for judicial review
HC08	Affidavits
HC09	Personal injury actions at country venues
HC10	Disclosure of reports and statements
HC15	Court funds - payment out of funds - interest
HC16	Court funds - payment out of funds - stamp duty
HC17	Court funds - acceptance of lodgment
HC19	Court funds - lodgment of minor funds
HC20	Chancery - documents to be lodged
HC23	Common law motion list
HC26	Withdrawal of action - Dublin personal injury list
HC27	Court funds - payment of funds out of the High Court
HC28	Companies Acts - applications under s.150(1) Companies Acts 1990
HC30	Court funds - Transfer of Circuit Court action to High Court
HC32	European Convention on Human Rights
HC33	Electronic transmission of judgments
HC34	Succession Act 1965 section 34(1)
HC39	Commissions of Investigations Act 2004
HC41	European enforcement orders
HC42	Cases stated to the High Court
HC43	European Communities (Freedom to Provide Services) (lawyers) Regulations, 1979 to 2004
HC45	Use of video conferencing link for taking evidence in civil cases
HC47	Applications for judgment by consent
HC48	Common law motions - judgment in default of appearance
HC49	Inland revenue affidavit
HC52	Allocation of business to Deputy Master
HC53	Books of pleadings
HC54	Proceedings involving a litigant in person
HC55	Companies Acts - winding up petitions
HC57	Costs applications in uncontested proceedings under Article 40.4 of the Constitution and for judicial review
HC58	Setting down for trial in medical negligence actions
HC59	Ex parte motions to the court
HC62	Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I recast)
HC65	Service of the Statement of Affairs and the Statement of Personal Information on the Official Assignee and the Publication of the Notice of Adjudication
HC66	Personal Insolvency Practitioner Letters in Bankruptcy Matters
HC67	Title of proceedings
HC68	Written submissions
HC70	Personal injuries - trespass to the person
HC72	McKenzie Friends
HC75	Certificate of readiness in non jury and chancery actions
HC76	Personal Injuries Actions arising from allegations of bullying and/or harassment
HC77	McKenzie Friends
HC79	Judicial review - procedure in respect of cases listed for hearing
HC81	Asylum, immigration and citizenship list
HC82	Personal insolvency list
HC83	Appeals from the Circuit Court in respect of Personal Insolvency and Examinership cases
HC84	Motions for judgment in summary summons proceedings
HC85	Commercial list
HC87	Enduring Power of Attorney Act, 1996
HC88	Wards of Court
HC89	Consent Orders
HC91	Practice Direction for all claims (excluding personal injury claims) in which oral evidence will be given.
HC92	General Practice Direction for Personal Injury actions
HC93	Commercial List Revised Practice Direction
HC95	Affidavits of Medical Practitioners Supporting a Petition
HC99	Enduring Powers of Attorney - Medical Reports
HC100	Bankruptcy
HC102	Wards of Court - Form to accompany all High Court Wardship Petitions and Applications
HC104	Applications to have cases in Dublin Personal Injuries List heard on a remote platform.
HC105	Applications Pursuant to Construction Contracts Act 2013
HC106	Master's Court
HC108	Consent Orders
HC113	Commercial Court List
HC115	Professional Disciplinary List
HC116	Arbitration List
HC117	Master's Court
HC118	President's List
HC120	Wards of Court
HC121	Wards of Court Review Pursuant to S.107 or S.108 ADMCA
HC122	Commercial Court List
HC123	Inherent Jurisdiction (Capacity) Applications
HC125	Payment on Account of Costs Pending Adjudication
HC126	Planning & Environment List
HC127	Non Jury List: Hearing of Witness Actions in the Non Jury List

HC13	Bail applications
HC24	Bail applications - bail list
HC42	Cases stated to the High Court
HC43	European Communities (Freedom to Provide Services) (lawyers) Regulations, 1979 to 2004
HC61	Notice of motion for bail by persons in custody
HC63	Bail Applications at Cloverhill Courthouse
HC64	Section 2A Bail Act 1997
HC98	High Court Bail Proceedings to be Heard Using Live Video Link

HC11	Family law - proceedings by special summons
HC12	s.4 Family Home Protection Act, 1976
HC22	Family law - certificate of readiness
HC29	Family law - Friday motion list
HC36	Child Care Act, 1991 Part IVA
HC51	Family law proceedings

High Court Practice Directions

HC126

Planning & Environment List

(13) Statements of Grounds and Grounding Affidavits

(21) Fixing of date for hearing (expedited and standard procedure) & designation of document management party