**Update on GLA’s Judicial Review Case against the Planning & Development Authority Re: Developments at Mt. Hartman, La Sagesse and Levera**
We wish to inform our members and the general public of the current status of our case. As of 10th September 2021, all three developers have been joined in the action as interested parties.
And the 19th November 2021 has been scheduled for the hearing of the Attorney-General’s application on behalf of The Planning and Development Authority to strike out the case.
Case Recap
You may recall that on 24th June the court heard applications by the three developers to be joined in the case either as interested parties or defendants.
On the said date the court on an oral application by the Levera developers gave them permission to be joined as an interested party with liberty to file submissions and with the court’s leave affidavits.
The court reserved its ruling in relation to the other two developers pending written submissions which were all filed by 2nd July.
GLA being mindful that it was very likely that the court would join the other two developers as interested parties made an informal application in its submissions for the developers to meet GLA’s costs consequential on GLA having to comply with any joinder orders.
GLA did so as if the developers were joined, GLA would have to incur further costs by way of filing fees and administrative costs in responding to them. This was on the basis that there was an obvious financial inequality between GLA and the developers and that the Civil procedures rules gives the court a discretion on whether or not to make such an order. On the affidavit evidence before the court, it is apparent that GLA is a local NGO relying on public funds whilst the developers are backing multi-million-dollar developments.
The High Court commenced its long vacation on the 1st August. However, prior to this no decision had been delivered by the Court on the outstanding issues of joinder and costs.
On 10th September, at about 10.00 a.m., Justice Glasgow handed down his ruling via zoom in the presence of representatives of GLA, the Attorney General and the three developers.
The Court ordered that in the interests of justice, the Mt Hartman and La Sagesse developers were to be joined as interested parties with full liberty to participate as they saw fit. The Court ordered that each party bear its own costs of the joinder applications.
Further, the Court refused GLA’s application for consequential costs as it determined that it did not have sufficient evidence before it on which to make a finding as to the financial position of GLA and the developers.
The Effect of the Joinder Orders.
This means that all three developers are now joined in our case and can adduce evidence, make submissions and any applications that they see fit to make.
It also means that they can join in the Attorney-General’s application to have the case struck out for lack of standing. Both the La Sagesse and Mt Hartman developers have made it clear that they will make applications to strike out.
It also means that GLA will be called upon to incur further costs to deal with rebuttals/responses to the evidence, applications and submissions that the developers may make and that the case will be more prolonged.
The Court also set a timetable for any applications to be made by the developers and for GLA to respond to it. And the Court set the 19th November at 9:00 a.m., for the hearing of the Attorney-General’s application to strike out. It is anticipated that if the developers also apply to strike out that all strike out applications will be heard on that date.
The Court also set 10th December as a case management date in the event that the strike out application/s should prove unsuccessful.
What will happen on 19th November?
On 19th November, the Court will hear arguments from most likely all parties as to whether our case should be ‘struck out’, i.e., be dismissed. The Attorney General acting for the Planning and Development Authority has asserted that the GLA has no legal standing to bring this case and that the case should not be allowed to continue. All three developers support that assertion. This should be the only issue to be considered.
As to the substantive issues in our case, i.e., whether the Planning and Development Authority has acted in accordance with law and procedure in relation to its grant of planning permissions to the three developers these will be considered at a later date and only if the Court determines that our case should not be struck out.
However, if the Court finds that GLA’s case should not be struck out and there is no appeal from that order then it will proceed to a Case Management Hearing during which the Court would set a timetable for the case including a date for a full trial of the substantive issues. A tentative date for Case Management was set for 10th December 2021.
If our case proceeds to trial, we will face the Attorney-General and all three developers in arguing the substantive matters in the case. This would be an important result as it would force the Planning and Development Authority to account for its decision and actions regarding these three developments, which is the main purpose of GLA’s claim for a judicial review.
We clarify that our claim remains squarely against the Planning and Development Authority as it is the public body that makes decisions concerning development in the State. Judicial review claims lie only against Government entities and not private commercial bodies/persons.
In the meantime, GLA notes that even though this action is still live before the courts that development works of one kind or the other have continued at the three sites. The La Sagesse developers in particular have gone full speed ahead and has now back-filled sections of the salt pond at La Sagesse, something which was not accounted for anywhere in the environmental impact assessment for the project. And, what appears to be a row of residential buildings are being erected on the shores of the salt pond.
GLA