High Court dismisses applicant's challenge to planning permission, ruling merits complaints lack substantial grounds for legal review.

[2025] IEHC 621 THE HIGH COURT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT [H.JR.2024.0001408] BETWEEN JOAN DELANEY APPLICANT AND AN COIMISIÚN PLEANÁLA RESPONDENT AND BUIRIOS LIMITED (BY ORDER)

NOTICE PARTY

Date of impugned decision: 12 September 2024 Date proceedings commenced: 11 November 2024 Date of main hearing: 13 October 2025 Date of judgment: 13 November 2025

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Thursday the 13th day of November 2025

1. In this case, the county council, the inspector, and the commission all considered that the development was acceptable. The applicant’s submissions were evaluated and considered in that process and dealt with expressly. She doesn’t agree with the outcome, but a merits complaint does not constitute a substantial ground for legal challenge. The applicant, who represented herself, now seeks leave to challenge the decision. The primary question is whether she has demonstrated substantial grounds for such a proposed challenge. Geographical context

2. The impugned decision is not properly identified in the statement of grounds, but from other material furnished is ABP-318704-23: https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/318704.

3. The application relates to a 10-year development of nine wind turbines and associated infrastructure at Borrisbeg and adjacent townlands, near Templemore town in Co. Tipperary (https://borrisbegplanning.com/). Facts

4. The application for permission was lodged on 14 December 2023. The applicant had written making an objection on 13 December 2024, but this was rejected as being outside the applicable time period.

5. She then wrote to the board with a submission on 31 January 2024.

6. Tipperary County Council’s Chief Executive Officer’s report was submitted to the board on the 14 February 2024. The council concluded that the development was basically acceptable subject to certain points (inspector’s report para. 7.2.3.).

7. The applicant wrote again to the board on 3 April 2024.

8. The board acknowledged this by letter dated 4 April 2024.

9. The inspector reported on 26 June 2024, recommending grant of permission with conditions.

10. The impugned decision was made on 12 September 2024, whereby permission for the project was granted with conditions.

11. The board notified the applicant by letter dated 16 September 2024. Procedural history

12. In anticipation of issuing proceedings, the applicant sent an email to the non-jury JR List on

6 November 2024 at 14:32, seeking a pre-emptive extension of time for a proposed judicial review application. That is not the correct procedure to seek an extension of time and unsurprisingly there appears to have been no response.

13. The statement of grounds was not filed until 11 November 2024, out of time by five days.

14. Following filing of papers, the onus is on an ex parte applicant to contact the List Registrar seeking a date. The applicant failed to do that and only contacted any registrar (in fact, incorrectly, the judicial review registrar) to advance matters more than five months later on 1 May 2025.

15. Various listing dates were entered on the system but the applicant requested that each of them be vacated in turn. That was dealt with administratively and I only became aware of what had happened around 15 September 2025, with the result that the matter was ultimately listed on 29 September 2025.

16. The applicant did not attend, although the developer did, and on that date I joined the developer as a notice party, directed leave on notice and made an unless order striking out the application unless the applicant attended on the adjourned date of 13 October 2025.

Correspondence from the developer to the applicant which issued immediately thereafter expressly pointed out the nature of the order made.

17. The leave application was heard on notice on the latter date. There was no time limit applied to the applicant’s opportunity for opening and replying submissions. Judgment was reserved at the end of the hearing.

18. Nonetheless to ensure that the applicant felt that she had a full opportunity to make her points, I decided to allow her a concession of a post-hearing written submission (which she availed

of) and a replying submission once opposing parties had responded to the former submission (which she did not avail of).

19. If it assists the parties I might draw attention to the formality that where a party is added to proceedings, such as the notice party here, they are required to make an appointment with the Central Office with the Order to arrange for the formal amendment of the cause books. The notice party might attend to any outstanding issues in that regard as soon as possible.

20. It might also be desirable for the commission to make such an appointment in respect of its own title in the proceedings also because for whatever reason the general order changing the name of the board (that applies in this case) made in September 2025 has not been actioned in the cause books applicable to this case.

21. To assist the making of today’s order I am going to repeat the order previously made in that regard, for the avoidance of doubt. The law in relation to leave

22. The main requirements in relation to leave to apply for judicial review under G. v. DPP [1994]

1 I.R. 374 (Finlay C.J.) as that applies to planning cases, bearing in mind the adjustments to that test required by amendments to O. 84 RSC since then and by statutory modification, were referred to in Reid v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 5) [2022] IEHC 687, [2022] 12 JIC 0902 (Unreported, High Court, 9 December 2022) and more recently in Duffy v. Clare County Council [2023] IEHC 430, [2023] 7 JIC 2404 (Unreported, High Court, 24 July 2023) and Morehart v. Monaghan County Council [2024] IEHC 100, [2023] 2 JIC 2601 (Unreported, High Court, 26 February 2023) at §23.

23. The core criteria are:

(i) that the applicant has standing by way of having a sufficient interest (O. 84 r. 20(5)

RSC, s. 50A(3)(b)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (the 2000 Act));

(ii) that the facts averred in the affidavit would be sufficient, if proved, to support a substantial ground for the form of relief sought by way of judicial review (G. v. DPP as modified by s. 50A(3)(a) of the 2000 Act);

(iii) that on those facts a substantial case in law can be made that the applicant is entitled to the relief which she seeks (G. v. DPP as modified by s. 50A(3)(a) of the 2000 Act);

(iv) compliance with time limits, normally eight weeks in the planning context (s. 50(6)

and (7)), noting that any extension must be expressly sought (this is now reflected in O. 103 r. 10(1) RSC);

(v) capacity of the applicant (as a matter of general law – only an issue in applications by unincorporated bodies);

(vi) exhaustion of remedies, or as put in G. v. DPP, that the only effective remedy, on the facts established by the applicant, which the applicant could obtain would be an order by way of judicial review or, if there be an alternative remedy, that the application by way of judicial review is, on all the facts of the case, a more appropriate method of procedure (s. 50A(3)(c) inserted by s. 22 of the Planning and Development, Maritime and Valuation (Amendment) Act 2022, which has been in force since 20 October 2022 by virtue of the Planning and Development, Maritime and Valuation (Amendment) Act 2022 (Commencement of Certain Provisions) (No.

3) Order 2022 (S.I. 523 of 2022));

(vii) compliance with relevant procedural requirements, particularly O. 103 RSC (which applies to pre-existing proceedings) and the terms of High Court Practice Direction HC126 – although normally this would affect the specifics of any leave in how the reliefs and grounds should be worded, rather than whether leave should be granted at all; and

(viii) that there are no other grounds to warrant refusal of leave on a discretionary basis (see North East Pylon Pressure Campaign Limited & Ors v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 1)

[2016] IEHC 300, [2016] 5 JIC 1215 (Unreported, High Court, 12 May 2016), which refers to triviality or lack of good faith for example). Application of the law as to the grant of leave

24. The application of the foregoing to the present case is best addressed by looking firstly at the applicant’s repeated demands for adjournments and related demanded entitlements, an overview of the criteria for the grant of leave, and an application of those criteria here.

The applicant’s demanded entitlement to adjournments and protests of incapacity

25. The applicant repeatedly claimed in vigorous and protracted correspondence that she was too unwell and/or stressed to move her leave application, a strong claim that was never established evidentially.

26. The one really fundamental problem with all of that is that these are the applicant’s proceedings – having instituted them she has an objective obligation to prosecute them. I agree with the notice party’s submission on this issue:

“These are the Applicant’s proceedings

4. These proceedings were instituted on 11th November 2024. In the interim, between that date and the Developer seeking to have the matter listed on the 29th September 2025, the Applicant took no steps whatsoever to progress her proceedings. Indeed, the Applicant only attended Court on 13th October 2025 when informed that the proceedings would be struck out in the event of non-attendance. The Applicant refers to what might have occurred if she had attended on 29th September 2025 but the reality is that Applicant took no steps at any point to seek leave until forced to and the Developer took no steps on that to prejudice the Applicant’s position in her absence – for example, no application was made to strike out the proceedings. It is not open to any Applicant to simply leave their proceedings in limbo, in circumstances where the Developer (through no fault of its own) suffers all of the prejudice of that failure to take any steps.

5. While the Applicant identifies a number of underlying health issues, the Applicant has not identified any reason why she was unable to seek leave at any point in the 10 months between the proceedings being issued and the Developer being forced to intervene. The only actual reference in her submission is an email she sent to the Central Office on 1st May 2024 and a reference to a number of health issues.

6. The Developer in no way gainsays the seriousness of those health complaints (and contrary to the suggestion at p. 8 of the Applicant’s submission no suggestion was ever made that the Applicant was being disrespectful to the Honourable Court or was a vexatious litigant) but the Applicant and nobody else, respectfully, bears an obligation to progress her own litigation. That is an obligation that the Applicant has signally failed to discharge.”

27. Insofar as the applicant says she has been suffering from certain health issues I also have every sympathy for her in that regard. The court and the Courts Service have endeavoured to assist her in various ways insofar as it has been apparent to us that such issues have caused her any particular significant problems in access to the court. (For example, in view of her medical issues, when she requested details of the opposing oral submissions we exceptionally provided that extract from the DAR. When she then wanted a record of her own submissions we also provided that extract.) That said, age and/or infirmity is not a basis on which proceedings seeking to block a development can be held up unduly – opposing parties also have rights, especially in a commercial context.

If a moving party is really unable to progress a matter then the court would have to consider a solution like a guardian ad litem – a case can’t simply be driven off the road and parked indefinitely merely because it has been brought by someone not in full health – if that were so then it would incentivise having proceedings brought by the most infirm applicant available, and the nursing homes of the country would be a happy hunting ground for obstructionists seeking signatories on a statement of grounds. I don’t doubt that the applicant has had various unfortunate conditions but it has not been established by evidence that such conditions totally or even substantially prevent her from moving her leave application – indeed they clearly don’t prevent her from engaging with the case in writing on a very vigorous and near-continuous basis or from threating the making of complaints to everyone from the Chief Justice to the Minister to the media and of course appeal courts.

The medical certificates are not impressive documents. They are general in nature, do not indicate any acute or merely temporary problem but rather relate to chronic conditions that were there when the proceedings were launched and look like they will be there indefinitely. They are not backed up by a doctor’s affidavit, still less by oral evidence, and they don’t get her very far in a situation such as we have here. Also of note is that the applicant sought an oral hearing from the board in her submission in 2023, but complained before me that the reason she did not want to move the leave application for a prolonged period in 2024-25 was because she was unable to participate in a hearing, mainly but not exclusively related to a condition she had experienced in 2022.

Such a situation does not lend itself to a conclusion of genuine inability to move her leave application. But even if there was such an inability it cannot be a basis for the case to remain in limbo for a protracted period, as a matter of justice to the other parties and in particular the developer who has the benefit of a prima facie lawful public law decision.

28. To put in context why one is drawn to the conclusion that the applicant has been engaged in a campaign of playing for time, the history of this matter indicates as follows:

(i) Even prior to issuing the proceedings, the applicant pre-emptively wrote to the judicial review registrars seeking an advance extension of time.

(ii) When papers were filed the applicant did nothing to move her application for 5 months.

(iii) When the List Registrars were eventually informed of the matter they listed it on 12 May 2025. She then emailed (Thursday 8 May 2025 10:39) seeking time saying she had got notice of a two day procedure – with no indication of when that was to be or whether it conflicted with the proposed listing or not, let alone any indication of the nature of the procedure.

(iv) When the matter was relisted for 26 May 2025, she again emailed (22 May 2025 12:07) seeking an adjournment on health grounds, allegedly on the basis of having had a procedure.

(v) When the matter was relisted for 30 June 2025, she again emailed (6 June 2025 12:38) referring vaguely to ongoing conditions and a planned CT scan (no date specified but it appeared to be mere surveillance).

(vi) When the registrars relisted it for 14 July 2025, she immediately replied seeking more time without reasons (6 June 2025 13:02) – at this point the registrars (due to understandable human fallibility under such a relentless onslaught of demanded entitlements) adjourned the matter generally on the system.

(vii) When the matter was eventually listed in court on 29 September 2025, she did not show up.

(viii) When it was listed again on 13 October 2025, on the basis of an unless order she did appear (for the first and only time time), and while various procedural issues (including yet again a request for an adjournment) were raised by her at the hearing, no notice of any application had been given and no formal application was made, and none of these issues were grounded on properly adduced evidence or appeared particularly weighty, still less compelling.

(ix) When the registrars emailed her on 15 October 2025 at 12:06 pm, to offer the facility of a replying submission by 1 pm on the following Friday, she rejected that and requested two weeks.

(x) The registrars then as a compromise suggested a period of about one week to 22 October 2025 – she rejected that. Critically, the registrars informed by email on Thursday 23 October 2025 at 15:47 that “Any future applications to the Court must be made by filed Notice of Motion and grounding Affidavit”. No motion was ever issued seeking further time or any other relief floated in her various items of correspondence.

(xi) Ultimately when the two-week period she requested was given, she emailed (29 October 2025 at 12:25) with 35 minutes to go before the deadline requesting a further open-ended extension of time.

(xii) On the morning the opposing submissions were due on 5 November 2025, she preemptively emailed to say that she had presented herself to an A&E department the previous night complaining of issues, and effectively anticipated that she would not be complying with the deadline for her final submissions on 12 November 2025.

(xiii) When the registrars indicated that the existing deadlines would stand absent demonstration of exceptional circumstances, of the existence of which the court was not satisfied (5 November 2025 at 10:12), she replied within two hours (at 12:07)

pleading inability to deal with opposing submissions and said that she had not even opened them as it would cause stress. She enclosed a photo of a monitor but limited further information – I could completely discount that but in fairness to her it apparently shows a level which on the basis of public domain material and indeed common knowledge would be high for sure, but well short of what counts as an urgent medical emergency. But characteristically the applicant presents every health issue in a maximalist fashion as involving total incapacity to deal with the case. The applicant stated she was in a private clinic (presumably as an outpatient

– this wasn’t specified but we can be sure that if it was as an inpatient we would have heard all about it) awaiting unspecified results and unspecified “tests” – assertions that are again characteristically vague, unevidenced and unparticularised.

(xiv) On 6 November 2025 at 11:05, she replied again to the email of the previous day asserting that the correspondence was “extraordinary”.

(xv) On Saturday 8 November 2025, the applicant emailed (17:07) complaining about her treatment in the private clinic and stating she would not be returning. She complained about her medical condition and demanded an adjournment for what appeared to be an arbitrary period of four weeks – the condition appears chronic on her account (the GP calls it “long term”) so there is no basis to assume anything will be different in four weeks’ time. She attached a sick cert showing inability to attend

work or school for two days (5-6 November 2025), and a letter from her GP with some details of her medical history going back to 2017, of limited relevance to her ability to prepare a replying submission – again reading between the lines there is nothing particularly acute about her problems and adjourning matters on this basis would be adjourning them indefinitely. Insofar as the GP reports stress due to having to deal with the case, that is a situation that is not going to improve in four weeks’ time or in any amount of weeks’ time.

(xvi) On 10 November 2025, the registrars emailed her at 13:56 indicating that the court was not minded to adjourn matters absent exceptional circumstances and a formal notice of motion. She replied seven minutes later at 14:03 demanding to know the criteria for exceptional circumstances.

(xvii) One development that perhaps might have been predicted was that as the final deadline approached, the applicant would intensify her campaign of seeking adjournments. Without waiting for a reply she emailed again on the same day at 14:32, saying inter alia “I will have to go to the Court of Appeal. ... the Court behaves in such a Draconian, unreasonable, unprofessional, unsafe manner. ...

your behaviour is reckless. ... I wish to see accountability in this matter ...” One wonders if it is necessary to point out that if she is mentally able to deliver a blizzard of correspondence to the court and prepare papers for appellate courts she should be able to do a short replying submission in her actual live case in the High Court.

Especially since the applicant has requested her papers, I set out in the Annex to this judgment her extensive campaign of correspondence with the court and the replies, insofar as all of this is currently to hand. Again, at the risk of labouring the point, this flood of vigorous correspondence completely gives the lie to any idea that she is a shrinking violet unable to deal with matters, and if she had devoted even a fraction of this obvious energy to actually dealing with the substance of her case it would have been resolved long ago. The final cherry on the cake regarding her alleged total incapacity to deal with the matter was that on the very day she should have been putting together her brief replying comments by way of submission, she was instead checking High Court search and emailing the registrars querying the listing in December 2025 (which was provided for under s. 46(3) of the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002).

29. In summary, virtually every attempt to move the matter on has been responded to reflexively with demands for entitlements to adjournments accompanied by a plea of inability to deal with the matter. But the applicant has been more than able to direct a stream of correspondence to the registrars over the past six months, frequently on a same-day or same-hour basis, raising complaints about almost everyone she has come into contact with in the process (the developer, the court, registrars, officials, even the hospital). The medical issues are frequently historic, largely generic, always maximalised, never formally evidenced, and overall quite insufficient as a basis to conclude that she is unable to deal with the matter or to allow her to decline to bring things to finality. There is no sufficient evidential or legal basis to afford further time to her or to indulge any of her other informally-made procedural requests without any notice of motion ever having been issued.

30. A relevant procedural point in that regard is that I had directed that any further applications had to be by formal motion and grounding affidavit, and she was notified of this on a couple of occasions. Even assuming in her favour that having sent 59 emails she was somehow incapable of sending one more setting out any further replies to the opposing parties, and even assuming that I was somehow incorrect to have directed that further applications would be by motion grounded on affidavit, and even assuming that I should have allowed the matter to be delayed further on the basis of an unevidenced barrage of correspondence, nothing critical turned on that because in fact entertaining the opposing submissions turned out to be a development in her favour. Given that her original submissions disclosed no grounds on which leave should be granted, it would generally be procedurally improper to allow a reply to introduce new grounds (which then could not be replied to under the framework set out in the directions for submissions). When a groundless application is made, the issue is not whether to acceded to it but becomes how broad or narrow the basis of refusal is going to be. Having carefully considered her oral and written submissions I was minded to refuse the application on wider grounds than set out in this judgment, whereas having considered the opposing submissions I slightly narrowed the grounds of refusal. That doesn’t mean that there was anything wrong with the opposing submissions, just that they focused their objections slightly more than I had initially appreciated. So any error by me in not allowing more time for submissions was harmless in this respect. And in any event, given the overall context set out in this judgment, this of all cases is one in which we should be able to avoid pratfalling into the “serious error, to which lawyers are prone, to approach any such case on the tacit assumption that only procedures which

approximate to a criminal trial are fair, and anything which departs from that is somehow dubious" (O’Donnell J. in O'Sullivan v. Sea Fisheries Protection Authority [2017] IESC 75, [2017] 3 I.R. 751, [2018] 1 I.L.R.M. 245, 780). If authority is required for the reasonable latitude afforded to the trial court to give directions and specify time lines for various steps to be taken in order to move proceedings forward, relevant cases are set out in Eco Advocacy v. An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC

15 (Unreported, High Court, 4 April 2025) at 58, now codified to some degree in O. 103 rr. 22, 30(1), 32 RSC.

31. In all of the circumstances and despite her acknowledged age and infirmity I am satisfied that the applicant has had a reasonable and fair opportunity to make her point by reason of the combination of:

(i) the statement of grounds – not word-limited;

(ii) the grounding affidavit – not word-limited;

(iii) her oral submissions moving her application – not time-limited;

(iv) her oral submissions in reply to the opposing parties – not time-limited;

(v) the facility for a post-hearing written submission – not word-limited;

(vi) the facility for a post-hearing reply to the opposing submissions, that the applicant chose not to avail of – not word-limited;

(vii) the extensive correspondence sent by the applicant to the court and the Courts Service throughout the process – not word-limited (her 59 emails are set out in the Annex to this judgment); and

(viii) the other materials the applicant has uploaded to ShareFile – not word-limited. Overview of application of criteria for grant of leave

32. In terms of applying the criteria for leave to this application, the position is as follows:

(i) As to the criterion that the applicant has standing by way of having a sufficient interest (O. 84 r. 20(5) RSC, s. 50A(3)(b)(i) of the 2000 Act), that is satisfied as the applicant made submissions on the planning application.

(ii) As to the criterion that the facts averred in the affidavit would be sufficient, if proved, to support a substantial ground for the form of relief sought by way of judicial review (G. v. DPP as modified by s. 50A(3)(a) of the 2000 Act), that is not satisfied and is discussed further below.

(iii) As to the criterion that on those facts a substantial case in law can be made that the applicant is entitled to the relief which she seeks (G. v. DPP as modified by s.

50A(3)(a) of the 2000 Act), that is clearly not satisfied for similar reasons and is discussed further below in tandem with the previous point.

(iv) As to the criterion regarding compliance with time limits, normally eight weeks in the planning context (s. 50(6) and (7)), that is not satisfied. As the commission states, the application is out of time, on the basis that the papers were filed on 11 November 2024, and the statutory time limit expired on 6 November 2024. Time should not be extended because (a) no extension of time is sought either in the statement of grounds or by notice of motion; (b) no explanation properly compatible with the statutory test was furnished on affidavit; (c) even if the applicant’s problems had been averred to, generalised explanations about health difficulties do not render statutory time limits inoperable or come anywhere near establishing an inability to file papers within time; (d) pre-emptively emailing the judicial review registrars seeking an extension of time is not a proper basis for such an extension on any view, and the registrars were correct not to reply because such correspondence is a wholly misconceived way of making a judicial review application or of seeking an extension of time in connection with such an application; (e) if, which is far from clear, the applicant is relying on unawareness of the time-limit, such unawareness is not a proper basis for an extension, but in any event as the commission submits, “it appears that on her own case she was in fact aware of the limitation period, given that she claims to have emailed a Court registrar on 6 November 2024., i.e. the date on which the limitation period ended”; (f) if lack of legal representation is being relied on, that is not generally a basis for an extension of time in itself, there is no evidence of any real efforts in that regard but in any event as the commission submits “on the facts, the Applicant has not demonstrated how the lack of legal representation prevented her from filing her Statement of Grounds at any point in the 8 weeks up to 6 November 2024, but yet allowed her to file it on 11 November 2024”; (g) the shortness of the delay is not a reason for an extension if the “outside the control” criterion for extension is not met; (h) her status as a lay litigant does not change the test for extension of time; and (i) even a cursory look at the voluminous correspondence the applicant has been addressing to the court and Courts Service on a near-daily basis indicates that she is nowhere near unable to

deal with the process. All that said, however, I prefer not to rest the decision on the time issue so the foregoing is obiter.

(v) As to the criterion regarding the capacity of the applicant that is not a problem here.

(vi) As to the criterion regarding exhaustion of remedies, that is not a problem here either.

(vii) As to the criterion regarding compliance with relevant procedural requirements, I would refuse leave on that basis (see below).

(viii) As to the criterion that there are no other grounds to warrant refusal of leave on a discretionary basis, I would refuse leave on that basis (see below). Lack of substantial grounds

33. The lack of substantial grounds is the core problem and warrants brief further discussion. The unfocused, unclear and argumentative statement of grounds is verified only by a one-line type averment, which provides no clear evidential basis for the relief sought. Generic verification is inappropriate in a specialised commercial context such as planning law, but in any event the facts pleaded do not support a conclusion of there being substantial grounds.

34. No substantial ground appears from the statement of grounds and indeed the statement on its face refers to matters for which the commission is not responsible. Insofar as there is a complaint about removal of trees and hedges, that does not arise as a consequence of the impugned consent. On the material presented by the applicant, this was as a result of a third party’s actions in 2019, which has nothing to do with the permission.

35. In particular, the inspector expressly refers to the applicant’s concerns in para. 10.17.18:

“10.17.18. However, I draw the Board’s attention to the location of the proposed entrance in proximity to an existing residential property, situated on the L-3248 to the east of the proposed site entrance (observer Joan Delaney, H038) and concerns raised in respect of the potential for construction noise and vibration impacts on the property, including structural damage. Given the proximity of the dwelling to the proposed main access road, I consider that during the construction phase, there is potential for greater intensity of effects on this property. In response to the submissions, it is stated that the applicant is agreeable to further precautionary mitigation measures, such as temporary acoustic screening along the boundary and a pre/post structural condition survey of the property. These additional measures are not unreasonable and would further reduce noise and vibration effect arising from construction traffic in the interest of residential amenity. Should the Board decide to grant permission for the development, this matter can be addressed by condition.”

36. A complaint there was a failure to consider her submission is clearly unfounded. A complaint that it was not agreed with is a merits complaint.

37. Furthermore, the website on which the documentation relating to the application was available was identified early in the process and is stated in the decision. Such documentation remains available as of time of writing (https://borrisbegplanning.com/, as noted above) so there is no evidence that necessary information was not available to the applicant. I agree with the developer’s submission under this heading:

“c) Hedgerow Removal

17. The Applicant makes extensive complaint over hedgerow removal in fields neighbouring her property. In her Statement of Grounds (p.2) this removal is ascribed to the actions of a neighbouring farmer and which appears to have occurred in 2019. The Developer is a stranger to any hedge removal on site and no hedges were ever removed at its behest or instigation. It is simply not the case that any third party was ‘facilitated’ in carrying out any agricultural activities on site.

18. Any hedges removed by a third party are not the responsibility of the Developer and, respectfully, have nothing to do with either the validity of the grant of planning permission or an extension of time. The basic problem with the Applicant’s case is that she, respectfully, cannot use these proceedings to ventilate her dis-satisfaction in relation to historic hedgerow removal by a third party.

19. There is no basis in either the Statement of Grounds or the Applicant’s submission which impugns or could possibly impugn the grant of permission by reference to what occurred in neighbouring fields by third parties.

20. If leave to seek judicial review is refused, the Applicant retains her rights as against any third party in relation to any unauthorised activities.

d) Access road

21. It is not the case that the Applicant was unaware of the location of the access road for the Wind Farm at any relevant time. The Developer’s agents called to the Applicant’s house on 23rd August 2023 and identified precisely where the access road was going to be placed. Other access road locations were assessed for the purposes of the EIAR but all were discounted for various environmental reasons.

22. All of this could be placed on Affidavit, but there is no necessity in circumstances where the Applicant raised the alleged impacts on her property as a result of the Wind Farm and these were in fact considered by the Commission per (inter alia) §10.17.18 of the Inspector’s Report.

23. The Applicant is clearly unhappy with the location of the access road but the impacts on her residence were considered by the Commission and there is nothing in the Statement of Grounds or the submissions upon which the Applicant impugns the legality of the Commission’s decision – the high point of the Applicant’s case is that the Applicant incorrectly contends that impacts on her residence were not considered by the Commission.

24. This is clearly not correct and although the Applicant identifies and complains about the proximity between her property and the access road (p.22 of the submissions) but these were all known and assessed by the Commission and the location of the access road has never been moved throughout the duration of the planning process.

25. On the last occasion, Counsel for the Developer indicated to the Court that the Applicant retained her rights in relation to seeking an injunction for the purposes of section

160 of the Planning and Development 2000 in the event that the Developer does not comply with its permission. This was not an invitation to institute those proceedings or a commentary on any future necessity for same. The Developer was simply clarifying that the Applicant retained her rights under the 2000 Act in the event that the grant of leave is refused.”

38. Overall no substantial ground appears from the applicant’s papers. Deficient pleadings in breach of rules of court

39. In any event, the pleadings are inadequate to support a conclusion that a substantial ground is properly particularised.

40. At the hearing of the application for leave on notice on 13 October 2025, counsel for the Commission made four points in opposing the application for leave. I am not resting the decision on the first point (time), as stated above.

41. The commission’s third numbered point was:

“The pleas in the Statement of Grounds are not properly particularised, contrary to the Rules of Court, and should be dismissed on that basis;”

42. The applicant disregarded numerous applicable procedures under O. 84 RSC and in particular failed to join the developer as a notice party. That was only done far outside the eight-week period by order of the court independently of any step by the applicant, and no explanation was ever furnished for that failure. Even leaving that aside however (as the developer doesn’t seem to be pressing that aspect), the complaint overall is not pleaded with the particularity required by the rules. The vague and unparticularised nature of the complaints is clearly disqualifying here so I would uphold the commission’s objection under this heading. Discretion due to failure to prosecute the action

43. The commission’s second numbered point was:

“The Applicant failed to adequately prosecute her application for leave, given that it appears that there were a number of non-appearances in the list by the Applicant and adjournments at her request, and the passage of nearly a year between the filing of papers and the moving of the application for leave on 13 October 2025”

44. The applicant’s failure to prosecute her proceedings in any proper way for 11 months or even to tell anybody about the proceedings for over five months, as well as her chronic pattern of demanding inadequately warranted adjournments, is highly problematical. This fundamental failure in her obligation as an applicant cannot properly be explained by reference to generalised medical issues, especially when they relate mainly to a health issue in 2022 that inevitably involves several years of monitoring, which cannot be equated to ongoing debilitating treatment. Furthermore, as noted above, the applicant’s vigorous campaign of actual and threatened correspondence and complaint gives the lie to any suggestion that she is too impaired to move her leave application.

45. Dismissal of a leave application on a discretionary basis due to failure to prosecute is the only real remedy in a situation where an applicant does enough to stop the clock (by filing papers) but not enough to actually progress the matter. Such an order is more than warranted here.

46. In essence the reasons why the applicant must be held to have failed to prosecute her action are:

(i) the overall failure to prosecute her proceedings effectively for nearly a year;

(ii) the failure to inform the registrars, the opposing parties, or anyone else about the case for five months; and

(iii) the pattern of engaging vigorously with the process by correspondence but then seeking adjournments repeatedly while implausibly claiming inability to engage with the process.

47. In all of the circumstances I would dismiss the application on discretionary grounds in any event given the failure in the basic duty of a public law applicant, especially in proceedings subject to statutory expedition (s. 50A(10) of the 2000 Act), to move the matter forward. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the applicant applying her creativity to generating a mutating series of process issues as opposed to addressing the substance of the case is a tactical move rather than reflective of a genuine inability to deal with the case. Whether one labels that a matter of discretion (as I do here) or something else, it is an unacceptable approach that warrants the dismissal of the application. Summary

48. In outline summary, without taking from the more specific terms of this judgment:

(i) It is settled law that a leave application must firstly plead substantial grounds with particularity and in accordance with rules of court, and secondly demonstrate such grounds evidentially.

(ii) Applying such law to the facts here, this application clearly fails in both of those respects.

(iii) It is settled law that judicial review is a discretionary remedy and that this can be considered even at leave stage.

(iv) Applying such law to the facts here, discretion militates against the grant of leave having regard to the failure of the applicant to prosecute her proceedings effectively for nearly a year or even to inform anyone let alone the opposing parties of the proceedings for many months, reinforced by her pattern of engaging vigorously with the process by correspondence but then seeking adjournments repeatedly while implausibly claiming inability to engage with the process.

(v) It is settled law that planning proceedings must be instituted within eight weeks, and that an extension of time must be expressly sought.

(vi) Applying such law, obiter, to the facts here, if it had been necessary to decide the issue I would have held the application to be out of time. Extension of time does not arise as it was not sought but had it arisen it would have been refused as no proper evidential and/or legal basis to satisfy the tests of such extension has been made out.

49. Finally, it may assist the applicant if I draw her attention to the legal position, if she isn’t aware of this already, that she is required to apply to the High Court for leave of this court under s. 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 in order to appeal the matter to the Court of Appeal. She may further or alternatively apply directly to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal to that court. Given the unhappy history of this matter it is best to start the clock for any further procedures now by way of perfecting the order rather than misguidedly invite further delay by any other approach. Order

50. For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that:

(i) the application for leave to seek judicial review be dismissed with no order as to costs;

(ii) in the event that the applicant wishes to apply for leave to appeal she be required to serve written legal submissions setting out her proposed questions of law of exceptional public importance by 1 pm on Wednesday 26 November 2025, the opposing parties be required to serve their submissions by 1 pm on Wednesday 3 December 2025, there be a 1-hour oral hearing of the leave to appeal application at 09:30 on Monday 8 December 2025, if requested by a party in submissions that comply with the foregoing timetable;

(iii) in the absence of such a request, any such application (if made) be dealt with on the papers forthwith following the deadline for replying submissions, and there be no further listing date directed in the High Court;

(iv) for the avoidance of doubt, An Coimisiún Pleanála be substituted as respondent in lieu of An Bord Pleanála in the proceedings, and such title be entered with the Proper Officer in the Central Office of the High Court to give effect to that order; and

(v) the foregoing order be perfected immediately.

ANNEX CORRESPONDENCE FROM APPLICANT AND REPLIES

Letters

24 August 2023: Letter from the applicant to James Crowley

31 January 2024: Letter from the applicant to An Bord Pleanála

3 April 2024: Letter from the applicant to An Bord Pleanála

4 April 2024: Letter from An Bord Pleanála to the applicant

4 April 2024: Second letter from An Bord Pleanála to the applicant

16 September 2024: Letter from An Bord Pleanála to the applicant

Emails November 2024

1. From: [applicant] Sent: 6 Nov 2024 14:32 To: <nonjuryjudicialreview@courts.ie> Subject: Application for time extension Dear Staff, I wish to apply for an extension of time to allow me to apply for an urgent Jucicial [sic] Review.

I attach documents to support this request.

Thanking you, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Attached letter [address] November 6th 2024 Dear Registrar, I am writing to you to see if it is possible to get an extension of time in lodging my application for leave to have a Judicial Review.

I’m not a vexatious litigant. I have opposed the planning application for the entrance to a Windfarm but not the Windfarm itself.

The entrance will be constructed 60 metres from the gable end of my house and I will be directly affected by the construction of the road itself and the construction of the Windfarm.

The planning has been granted by An Bord Pleanala.

My only recourse is to request a Judicial Review as I believe that many of my basic human rights have been flouted particularly on the grounds of disability rights as I am a Wheelchair user with special needs.

I have multiple health issues and I’m not firing on all cylinders. I have several co-morbidities as the medical professionals like to refer to them.

Only yesterday I received a phone call from the [specialisation 1 identified] consultant saying that my recent [test 1] reported a [specified matter 1]. He will be organising a [test 2] for further follow up. I’m very bothered by this news as I am recovering from [condition 1] and any finding of anything remotely sinister is very worrying.

In the middle of all this as a lay person I am trying to prevent the Windfarm entrance from going in beside me and destroying my peace for whatever time I have left on this planet.

I’m not saying I am popping my clogs soon. No one knows when their time is up but I suppose I am on a warning notice or as someone referred to themselves. ‘I am in the departure lounge’ I am not against the Windfarm. I recognise that with catastrophic climate events we have to take immediate action to reduce our carbon emissions.

However there are other options I believe in siting the entrance to the Windfarm.

I calculate that my application should be in by mid next week.

Would it be possible to extend the date by a week or two please?

I have compiled an account but as a Lay person I am not sure how much detail to put in so I am probably putting in everything but the kitchen sink with no censoring.

To give clarity I am enclosing a letter that I sent to the Windfarm Rep over a year ago.

I have to retract the name of my farmer neighbour at this point bearing in mind GDPR regulations.

My brain is fried at the moment but I think that I read on the Citizens Information site that

3 months was allowed to make an application. An Bord Pleanala allow 8 weeks.

I would be grateful if you could extend the time for me in order that I get my head around the process in addition to formulating an understandable application.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Joan Delaney

May 2025

2. From: [applicant] Sent: 1 May 2025 21:21 To: Non Jury Judicial Review <NonJuryJudicialReview@courts.ie> Subject: Next step Dear Staff.

I'm writing to you in connection with my Judicial Review application filed 11th Nov 24.

I phoned the Central Office as I haven't had any follow up and I was told that I should have received a date on the day of filing.

Can you look into this for me please?

I'm enclosing copy of the grounding affidavit.

Thanking you, Joan Delaney

Reply From: Non Jury Judicial Review Sent: 2 May 2025 09:10 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: Next step Good morning Ms. Delaney, Please see the attached Ex Parte Notice and in particular paragraph 2 therein.

You should send the relevant papers to jrexparte@Courts.ie and the Registrar will then be in position to list this matter in the Jr Ex Parte list., Kind regards … Non Jury/Judicial Review Registrar High Court

3. From: [applicant] Sent: 7 May 2025 11:40 To: <JRexparte@courts.ie> Subject: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Registrar, I am following through on directions received from Mr. … Registrar. I recently emailed him re an appointment for listing. I had been told when I lodged my documents in the Central Office that I would be contacted but seemingly that was incorrect. So I'm following up on the matter now.

I am sending you the documents requested but I'm not sure which other documents are required.

I'm sending you a letter that I sent the Registrar regarding time extension. I took the closing date for lodging the Judicial Review from the date on the letter not the date of the ABP judgement.

I'm also sending you photos of part of my objection to ABP.

If you have any queries please revert back to me. My phone number is ….

Thanking you, Joan Delaney Please see attached a. a Word version of the Statement of Grounds b. a scanned version of any filed Affidavits c. a copy of written submissions (no more than 2000 words)

Reply From: JRexparte <jrexparte@courts.ie> Sent: 7 May 2025 11:53 To: [applicant] Cc: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Ms. Delaney, This matter should be before the Planning and environment list, please email them at environment@courts.ie Kind regards … | Judicial Review Ex Parte List Registrar | High Court | Four Courts | Dublin 7 JRexparte@courts.ie | … | www.courts.ie FAO Practitioners and Lay Litigants: Please note the Judicial Review Ex Parte List will commence at 10:30am from Monday 13 November.

Please note updated Judicial Review Ex Parte practice directions:

d. Once you have filed grounding papers in the Central Office, contact the List Registrar at JRexparte@courts.ie with the record number and title of your proceedings in the subject line to request a listing date for the hearing of the JR leave application.

e. Lodge hard copy booklet and short written submissions (max 2000 words) in the List Room by 4pm on the MONDAY before the Monday you are listed for. Where papers are not lodged by the 4pm MONDAY deadline, the JR leave application will likely not be dealt with and will be adjourned.

f. Papers for JR leave applications will not be returned and will be shredded. Copies of papers must be re-lodged prior to any adjourned date, on the above deadline.

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Wed 07/05/2025 12:06 To: JRexparte jrexparte@courts.ie; [applicant] Cc: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Good morning, This matter has been listed in the Planning and Environment list on Monday the 12 th May 2025.

A ShareFile will be created for these Proceedings shortly. Please upload all relevant documentation to this folder.

I would refer you to Practice Direction HC126 for information on the operation of the list.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment List

4. From: [applicant] Sent: Wednesday 7 May 2025 13:17 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Fwd: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Registrar,

Ms … Registrar advised I send this communication to your department.

Kind regards Joan Delaney

3 Attachments in word: letter to court registrar Nov 6th 24; photos Windfarm objection; Final Judicial Review application

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Wed 07/05/2025 14:01 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Ms Delaney, The matter has been listed for the 12th of May 2025 for the leave application.

You will be granted access to the sharefile, you should upload all your papers to this facility.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

5. From: [applicant] Sent: Wednesday 7 May 2025 14:22 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Staff Thank you for your email.

Can you advise as to which documents I need to upload.

Should it include my application to An Bord Pleanala.

Also could you give me a later date please.

I'm a wheelchair user and I have to make arrangements with facilities in order to be able to access the disabled parking and get into the building.

They were extremely helpful when I lodged the application but they need notice to organise assistance.

Kind regards, Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Wed 07/05/2025 14:29 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Delaney, The initial papers to be uploaded should be the statement of grounds and affidavit.

If it suits, the list on Monday can be attended remotely online.

If you wish to attend remotely the link can be forwarded to you.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Wed 07/05/2025 14:31 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Ms Delaney, The initial papers to be uploaded should be the statement of grounds and affidavit.

If it suits, the list on Monday can be attended remotely online.

If you wish to attend remotely the link can be forwarded to you.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

6. From: [applicant]

Sent: Wednesday 7 May 2025 14:54 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Sir/Madame, Could you tell me what happens at this listing.

I would prefer to attend in person in case I need to speak directly with the judge so I'd appreciate it if you could change the date to allow arrangements as described to be organised.

Thank you Joan

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Wed 07/05/2025 14:57 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Ms Delaney, The matter has been moved to the 26th of May 2025.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

7. From: [applicant] Sent: Wed 7 May 2025 15:07 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Fwd: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Thank you Do you have a phone number?

Unfortunately I've a number of health conditions ongoing and I may be in hospital at short notice.

Kind regards Joan

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Wed 07/05/2025 15:16 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Ms Delaney, If you are unable to attend court, please advise us at this email at the earliest opportunity.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

8. From: [applicant] Sent: Wed 07/05/2025 15:32 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Ok. Will do.

Is there a section that I can study to find out the format of what happens at the listing.

Thank you Joan

Reply from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: Thu 08/05/2025 10:21 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Ms Delaney, Please refer to https://www.courts.ie/content/planning-environment-list

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

9. From: [applicant] Sent: Thursday 8 May 2025 10:39 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Thank you.

I just got notice yesterday for admission for a 2 day procedure.

Hoping to be OK after. Will let you know if I have to defer attending the list day.

Thank you Joan

10. From: [applicant] Sent: Mon 12/05/2025 19:14 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Staff, Could you send me the Sharefile please. I don't see it in my emails.

Thank you, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

11. From: [applicant] Sent: Mon 12/05/2025 19:21 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala HI Please ignore my last email as I have found the sharefile.

thanks Joan Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

12. From: [applicant] Sent: Tue 13/05/2025 21:48 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Staff, I am studying the Practice Directions and I note that they state that hard copies need to be provided to the court. Does this apply if a Litigant has uploaded documents to the Shared File Folder.

I am a bit confused.

Thank you, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: Wed 14/05/2025 08:50 To: [applicant] Subject: RE: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala

Dear Ms Delaney, No hard copies need to be filed unless otherwise stated by the court.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

13. From: [applicant] Sent: Wed 14/05/2025 10:17 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Thank you It's rather confusing as the directions instruct to l9dgd hard copies.

Glad you can update me Thanks again Joan

14. From: [applicant] Sent: Tue 20/05/2025 10:02 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: HJR 2024 1408 Joan Delaney and An Bord Pleanala Dear Staff My matter has been listed for the 26th May.

Could you let me know what time please.

Thank you, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

15. From: [applicant] Sent: 20 May 2025 10:07 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject:

Dear Staff I'm due to attend the list next Monday.

Could you let me know where this is held please.

Thank you Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: 20 May 2025 10:47 To: [applicant] Subject:

Dear Ms Delaney, Most likely it will take place in court 24 at 9:30, but please check the legal diary online on Friday evening for confirmation.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment Court List

16. From: [applicant] Sent: Tuesday 20 May 2025 11:51 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re:

Dear Staff, Thank you for your speedy response.

Joan Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

17. From: [applicant] Sent: 22 May 2025 12:07 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re:

Dear Staff I am writing to you regarding my listing next Monday.

i [sic] had to change the original date as I was in [medical centre 1] under Anaesthesia for a procedure.

The court date was changed to Monday the 26th. Unfortunately I am quite floored after the procedure.

Not as resilitent [sic] now I'm an elder lemon.

Can I ask you to change the date please.

I have also been having difficulties in getting through to the Estate Management Unit to organise assistance with accessability [sic] as I am a wheelchair user. They only correspond via email and i've [sic] not been able to manage to get a definitive answer re permission to park in the Four Courts parking area.

It was very streamlined last November when I could phone them but the communication system has changed. I can verify this with email copies.

Again my number is … Thanking you, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: 22 May 2025 12:21 To: [applicant] Subject: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear Ms Delaney, The case is now listed in the next Planning and Environment list on Monday 30 June at

9.30 am.

Kind regards, Planning and Environment Court List, High Court

18. From: [applicant] Sent: Thu 22/05/2025 12:59 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Thank you very much.

Joan Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

June 2025

19. From: [applicant]

Sent: 6 June 2025 12:38 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear Staff, Please see attached letter.

Thank you Joan Delaney

Attached letter 6th June 2025 [email] Dear Staff, I am writing to you concerning my listing for the Judicial Review List on Monday 30th June.

Case No 2024 1408 JR Unfortunately I am very unwell due to serious health conditions that are currently undergoing investigation. The stress of dealing with the matter which is the subject of the Judicial Review is also Impacting negatively on my health.

Further previously unknown information has also come to light about the Windfarm entrance roadway location which has really upset me.

I have been drip fed information in order to keep me in the dark.

I am exploring seeking assistance from a Legal Advisor but haven’t had much luck yet.

My reason for writing to you is to request an extension of time to allow me to deal with the above.

I have to have a [test 2] as [an issue] was seen on previous [test 1] and scans and I am being monitored for a return of [condition 1]. I would like to have this out of the way before proceeding further.

I would also like to know if it is possible to add further information to my Judicial Review application in view of new information described above becoming known only last week?

I am available for a phone call if you need to speak with me regarding the above.

Thanking you, Kind regards, Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: 6 June 2025 12:55 To: [applicant] Subject:

Good afternoon, The listing on the 30th of June has been moved to the 14th July.

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment List

20. From: [applicant] Sent: 6 June 2025 13:02 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Hi Can you extend it further please Thanks Joan Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie

Sent: 6 June 2025 13:34 To: [applicant] Subject:

Dear Ms Delaney, Do you have a rough time frame in mind?

Kind Regards, Planning & Environment List

21. From: [applicant] Sent: Fri 06/06/2025 15:23 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Not yet.

I have to get the [test 2] done first and I must get onto [medical centre 2] re same as they were meant to get back to me yesterday.

Ill let you know asap.

Thanks Joan Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

July 2025

22. From: [applicant] Sent: 1 July 2025 13:16 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear Staff, I just wish to update you re my situation.

I had the [test 2] about 2 weeks ago.

The results are with the consultant. He is awaiting further test results.

However I have asked his secretary if he can phone me with the [test 2] results as its worrying.

Sorry to involve you with my concerns but it's difficult to focus on other serious matters when there is ongoing anxiety over serious health issues.

When matters have settled I will revert to you as soon as possible.

Im [sic] also seeking legal representation in the matter.

Kind regards, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: 1 July 2025 13:57 To: [applicant] Dear Ms Delaney, Please revert when you wish to have the matter listed for the leave application.

Kind Regards,

23. From: [applicant] Sent: 1 July 2025 13:58 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear Staff,

Thank you for your understanding.

Joan Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland [note – emails 1-23 were dealt with administratively at the time and none of them came to the attention of the court until after approximately 15 September 2025]

September 2025

24. From: [applicant] Sent: 29 September 2025 20:49 To: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear Staff, My apologies for the delay in progressing matters re my JR application.

Unfortunately my health situation has not improved. I enclose 2 Medical Certs from my GP One that I received in July and one earlier this month. I wished to formalise my claim that I have ongoing health issues that have stalled my wish to progress matters.

I have no desire to delay things. It is not in my interest as time is very valuable to me at this point. I did not invite this scenario into my life and the only option of support and justice in this matter is to seek this from the Judge and the Court.

Today I received an email from Ms. … solicitor with the Windfarm company.

I enclose same and the 2 Medical Certs.

I wish to request that you bring them before Judge Humphreys.

If he does not accept them and I have no option but to attend Court on the due date then so be it.

I have had difficulty trying to get support via the Facilities estate management in the past re disability access etc. Nothing has changed in this regard as I haven't had my Lazarus moment and still use either a Wheelchair or a Rollator.

I don't know why I didn't think of it before but I can get a taxi from my friend's house in Dublin if necessary.

I plan to write to Judge Humphrey's regarding the matter as some information has been given to me that was not in the ABP Planning application and which has serious effects on me.

I also made a proposal to the Windfarm to provide a buffer zone and they have refused.

All will be revealed in due course.

It is with regret that I am constantly unwell. The stress of these court matters don't help me either.

So while I am devising my letter to Judge Humphreys can you please show either him or his senior assistant this information.

I appreciate that he is very busy and probably overwhelmed with JR applications and cases and wants to move things along.

Kind regards, Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

3 Attachments: Letter from [opposing party].pdf; [named doctor] med cert July 25.docx;

Medical cert 2 [named doctor].pdf

25. From: [applicant] Sent: 30 September 2025 07:28 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Listing date for Case No 2024 1408 JR - Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear Staff,

I sent you 2 medical certs yesterday.

I had meant to redact my Date of Birth which is typed on both.

It is not necessary for the purpose submitted and I don't like disclosing it.

Under GDPR and Data Protection can you please erase this information from my Certs Thank you Joan Delaney

October 2025 Reply to email 24 from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: 1 October 2025 9:16 To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney, With reference to the above matter, the court made the attached order on Monday the 29 th September 2025.

The court has granted you liberty to file a motion to apply for leave to apply for Judicial Review, you should use the attached order to file the motion in the Central Office.

The court is willing to facilitate a remote hearing of the motion on the 13 th of October, please let me know if you wish to avail of this by logging in online.

Kind Regards,

Further correspondence from: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Sent: 2 October 2025 14:56 To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: Re: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney, The court has directed that the motion is not required to be filed to put the other parties on notice in this matter.

The matter will be listed at 10:00 on the 13th October in person.

Kind Regards,

26. From: [applicant] Sent: 2 October 2025 18:30 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Thank you [name of Registrar].

Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

27. From: DFSD Sent: 4 October 2025 16:08 To: [applicant] ----reply above this line--

Thank you for logging a ticket through the Dublin Facilities Support Desk (DFSD).

We have received your ticket and our team will review your request shortly. We will provide you with updates as soon as possible.

If you think there is more information you can add that will help us respond to your query please reply to this email - such as office/room number; pictures of problem etc Many Thanks

DFSD

Dear Staff, I am writing to you to request permission to enter the Four Courts grounds on Oct. 13th at 9am.

I am a wheelchair user with a disabled blue badge and Primary Cert.

I received assistance before also which was very helpful.

Could you please call me on … to arrange.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

28. From: [applicant] Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025, 14:04 Subject: Re: wheelchair user needing assistance Oct 13th at 9am {11631} To: <support@courtsemu.cloud.gov.ie> Hi I contacted you 4 days ago and I've had no response.

Im [sic] in court on Monday Have you any updates on my request for assistance as a disabled person.

Kind regards Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

29. From: [applicant] Sent: 8 October 2025 17:18 To: Access Officer <AccessOfficer@courts.ie> Subject: Fwd: wheelchair user needing assistance Oct 13th at 9am {11631} Dear Access Officer, Please see enclosed email.

I emailed the facilities office 4 days ago and no response.

I am in court on Monday for my own matter and need to know if i [sic] can drive in or not.

I was allowed late last year and had a very positive experience.

Not so now or in May.

I have a blue badge and a primary medical certificate.

My number is … if you could call me please.

Thank you Joan Delaney

Reply from: Access Officer <AccessOfficer@courts.ie> Sent: 9 October 2025 16:18 To: [courts service official] Dear [courts service official] I should be grateful if you could arrange for Ms Delaney to park in the Four Courts grounds on Oct. 13th at 9am.

Regards … Head of Human Resources

30. From: [applicant] Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025, 17:28

Subject: Re: wheelchair user needing assistance Oct 13th at 9am {11631} To: Access Officer <AccessOfficer@courts.ie> Dear Ms. [Access Officer], Please see attached letter. Regards, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Attached letter [Address] [Email address] [Phone number] Dear Ms. [Access Officer], I am writing to you regarding my request for access assistance and my experience thereafter.

1. In spite of my last email there was no follow up from you regarding Mr. [Court Service Official] involvement and how this was going to progress.

2. I received no email or phone call from him.

3. I received no verification email from you that he had responded to your email requesting assistance. You just sent your email to him without any follow up or response obviously. You did not process the matter to the end of final communication and satisfactory conclusion of same.

4. Yesterday when I attended the court the security personnel had no record of any communication relating to my mobility/access request. They kindly facilitated me anyway but this carry on is totally unacceptable. As the Access Officer you have a statutory duty of care to ensure that Access for a wheelchair/disabled person is organised and streamlined. (A Wheelchair user should not have the additional worry re getting into the Courts and accessing the Court room in addition to the matter that they are attending the court about. Luckily and with fore planning due to the expected outcome of the non-follow through in communication I arrived with time to spare.) This was most certainly not the case and my request for assistance was treated in a careless/ couldn’t be bothered approach in carrying out this duty of care to completion.

1. A Map clearly outlining access to the various parts of the courts should be designed and issued to the public. Outlining location of ramps, disabled bathrooms, automatic doors etc. The Irish Wheelchair Association have an excellent book on this. I had a horrendous experience yesterday whilst being stressed out with the court matter itself. While not in immediate need of the bathroom and due to it being in the opposite direction of where I was headed (Court 24) I decided not to use the Toilets at the end of the Four Courts near Aras Ui Dhalaigh gable. I have to minimise the number of steps I have to take as I have limited mobility stamina. My thinking was that surely there would be a wheelchair toilet on the way to the Chancery buildings. Not so. I had to ring the bell in the Central Court office to enquire as to where there were accessible toilets. There were none. I had to go to the 2nd floor for any toilet. At least there was a lift. Luckily I use a Rollator and was able to back into a regular toilet. It had a token hand rail as its only nod to being a disabled toilet. The poor cleaner was apologetic about the facilities. The same carry on was in the Chancery building. Toilet upstairs. I don’t even know if there was a lift. After 2 hours of sitting in Court 24 and having realised that the session could go on for hours I had to speak out to the judge in the middle of his Court session to say that due to disability

I was unable to stay and could I request a Virtual hearing. I did not want to be marked down as having not attended court. I was shocked to see that there were no staff members in evidence to ask for assistance in what was a very busy dangerously over crowded Court session. I.e. Court porters or similar.

When I attended court last year to lodge papers a service person was assigned to me and I was highly impressed. Why did this not occur yesterday?

Are you new to this role and not up to speed with the procedures etc.?

The Four Courts in general re facilities for disabled people is a disgrace. Considering that many I am sure are attending there as part of their claims for personal injuries, some of which are probably catastrophic.

So they are attending a Legal Centre looking for justice and this same centre doesn’t even acknowledge their extra physical needs. This is a shameful situation.

My experience was as follows.

Only 2 ramps to be seen in a space where there are loads of steps. I should have been allowed park in the so called Judges car park where there was a clearly marked disabled wheelchair space. The security guy on this gate was not particularly friendly or amenable to assisting me.

In the main car park I could not see specially designated wheelchair spaces.

A wheelchair space is larger to allow the person unload a cumbersome wheelchair etc. It is marked in blue. I have been blocked in in regular car park spaces.

The door at the end of the ramp was automatic but it was the only one that I came across.

All the other doors were double doors, heavy etc. making it extremely difficult to get the Rollator through them.

I had made the Court aware of my disability yet there were no special accommodations for my situation. I was listed around number 60.

I found it impossible to hear the judge as he didn’t speak clearly into the microphone. There was nothing wrong with the microphones as I could clearly be heard when I spoke.

I couldn’t even see him as he spoke to me as there were so many computers in front of him blocking my view. So I couldn’t even lip read.

Can you advise me as to who in particular is responsible for Disability management within the Courts service?

I intend to bring this matter to the Chief Justice and the Minister responsible for Disability.

It is absolutely unbelievable that a State run institution is actually flouting the Disability Act which came out in 2005.

Particularly when this same institution is responsible for the proper enacting of the State’s Acts.

I wasn’t always disabled having been an active woman. No one knows the day or the hour when your life can be turned upside down. It might be wise for people involved in Disability services to recognize that and have some compassion in the carrying out of their duties. It might be their story someday.

Yours sincerely, Joan Delaney. Retired Nurse and Teacher. Lay Litigant

31. From: [applicant] Sent: 14 October 2025 17:35 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Mr. [List Registrar], I attended Court yesterday and following on from this I wish to lodge papers relating to matters that were discussed.

As some are confidentila [sic] i [sic] do not wish them to be shared in the shared File [sic] system.

They relate to private medical matters. It appears that inspite [sic] of Medical certs being given to

the Court no accomodations [sic] of my particular specia [sic] needs have been considered. I also wish to request under FOI a copy of the recording of yesterdays proceedings as I am expecting to have to appeal the matter to the Appeals Court and need to get ready for same. I also wish to point out to you that while you did a very good summation of my case you referred to me as a Ms. [name]. For your own records you might like to correct this. There was a Ms. [name] mentioned in the court yesterday but I am not she. While I am Ms Right I am not Ms. [name]!!!! Is there a transcript of the proceedings recorded and if so may I request a copy of same. I was quite taken aback by how matters were conducted yesterday. I did indeed protest as much to Judge Humphreys re same. Kind regards, Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 15 October 2025 10:38 To: [all parties] Dear Ms Delaney, Many thanks for pointing out the error in the order. We are treating this as a request for correction under the slip rule and are asking for the agreement of the other parties (copied to this email). While no time limit was imposed on parties submissions at the hearing, if you now feel there was more you wished to say in reply, the court will be happy to receive a replying written submission from you by 1 pm this Friday by email to this address. Any post judgment applications such as for any recording can be made by motion should that arise. For your information, the procedure in the list is that all correspondence should be copied to other parties. With regard to the error in the Order of the 29/09/25: can the Respondent and Notice Party please revert by lunchtime tomorrow to confirm, in writing, their consent to the amendment of the Order of the 29th September 2025 by slip rule by the removal of “[wrong name]” and the insertion of “Joan Delaney” as follows: “Whereupon and on reading the said Statement of Grounds and the Affidavit of [wrong name] Joan Delaney filed on the 11th day of November 2024 grounding said Statement and the exhibits referred to in said Affidavit” Kind regards

Reply from: [solicitor for the Notice Party] Sent: Wed 15/10/2025 12:58 To: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Cc: [all parties] Subject: RE: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Colleagues, I confirm that the Notice Party in the above matter consents to the amendment of the Order of the 29th September 2025 by slip rule by the removal of “[wrong name]” and the insertion of “Joan Delaney” as set out in the email below. Kind regards,

Reply from: [solicitor for the Respondent] Sent: Wed 15/10/2025 13:05 To: Solicitor for the Notice Party; Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie; Applicant Cc: [Solicitors for the Notice Party] Subject: RE: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Colleagues, I confirm that the Commission as the Respondent in these proceedings also consents to the below amendment by the slip rule.

Kind regards,

32. From: [applicant] Sent: 15 October 2025 13:28 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: Re: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms. [List Registrar], Thank you for your reply email.

Im [sic] wondering if you are the Registrar who presided on Monday.

If so you would have some idea of the probable toll having to defend myself has caused.

With this in mind I am requesting that you give me more time than 2 days to submit my documents and replying submission.

I am absolutely shattered after my day in court.

A part of me expected some kind of opposition response but I did not expect the level of opposition given.

As I said in court it was like the Hearing itself when I was only at the application stage.

Im [sic] getting my information from the Internet and it clearly said that the defence people didn't need to be notified until leave was granted.

Can you tell me if the JR court for Planning operates differently and why?

I have untreated severe [condition 2] in that I can't tolerate the [medical device] amongst several other health co morbidities. Im [sic] just back from [treatment 1].

I am fatigued from major sleep deprivation.

It's a miracle I'm able to drive. It's an adapted hand controls car in case you wonder how I can drive.

I regularly joke that if i [sic] were a dog I'd be put to sleep long ago!!!!

I wish to provide medical documentation to demonstrate how disabled I am.

My reason for this is because i [sic] dont [sic] think my situation is being taken seriously enough.

I would have expected special accommodations to have been put in place for a disabled person under the Equal Status Act. Ive [sic] given the court enough information to highlight my need.

You don't get your house adapted by the Council on a whim.

I also have a Primary medical Certificate which also has a high barrier in obtaining it.

Ive [sic] worked in Hospital and School environments where special accommodations are put in place for disabled people.

Mostly anyway.

Ive [sic] written a letter to the HR Access Officer and intend writing to the Chief Justice Mr.

O Donnell and Mr O Callaghan Minister regarding my horrendous experience on Monday.

Regarding access etc I will forward you this letter.

Im [sic] an unofficial campaigner for Disability rights.

I was listed around number 40 and had no choice but to speak out and in effect disrupt the Judge's planned schedule.

Otherwise I would have been marked as non attending and struck out.

There were no staff to assist in an overcrowded, jam packed Courtroom.

Why is the list not split into 2. Morning and afternoon.

It's a disaster waiting to happen in my view from a risk assessment analysis. Has a Fire Officer passed such an environment as being safe?

As far as I can see there is only 1 disabled toilet in the entire complex.

How is a disabled person supposed to last throughout such a long court session without a loo break and expect to monitor their place in the list and get over to the disabled bathroom near Aras Ui Dhalaigh.

All the while having serious pain levels.

I did not want to have a virtual appointment as I feared being blindsided by the defence.

This is precisely what would have happened had i [sic] not been there in person to defend my case.

I don't generally like the impersonal nature of Zoom calls.

The virtual distance does not work well in my experience.

It should not be the case that a disabled litigant cannot attend in person due to a lack of facilities and that the option is to have a virtual hearing.

This is an infringement of their Human and Constitutional rights.

Disabled people are excluded enough from participating in society without using IT to exclude them further.

So I respectfully request 2 weeks to complete my submission.

I may get it into you sooner.

Kind regards Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Wednesday 15 October 2025 15:50 To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: RE: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney, We wish to pass on the Court’s sympathies to your difficulties and the additional stresses you experienced. Unfortunately certain of the details which you have raised in your below email were not previously known by the Court or the Court Services and please be assured that we will look into this.

With respect to your request for a later submission date would you be in a position to make your submissions by 1pm on Wednesday of next week (22nd October)?

We also request the views of the opposing parties by return and we are also seeking their views on whether they would then wish to reply with a possible final response from the Applicant.

Kind regards

33. From: [applicant] Sent: 15 October 2025 20:54 To: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Im [sic] sending you screenshots of my JR appl [sic] stored on my laptop.

My Internet is acting up and I cant send from my laptop.

I clearly elaborated at the outset regarding my medical history.

I also recently sent medical Certificates with no response from the Court to my query re same.

When you say you have to contact other parties are you referring to my request for time extension?

Surely this is a Court decision?

I requested 2 weeks.

1 week is not enough time due to aforementioned circumstances.

I will also send you the email letter i [sic] sent yesterday to the Access Officer.

Kind regards, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

34. From: [applicant] Sent: 15 October 2025 21:01 To: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie

Subject: Fwd: wheelchair user needing assistance Oct 13th at 9am {11631} Dear Ms. [List Registrar] I am forwarding you the letter that I sent to Ms. [Access Officer] outlining difficulties experienced re Access.

Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Attached screenshots

1. body of an email from the Access Officer to a Court Service Official: “Dear … I should be grateful if you could arrange for Ms Delaney to park in the Four Courts grounds on Oct.

13th at 9am. Regards …”

2. body of an email sent by the applicant to the Access Officer: “Dear ms [sic] [Access Officer] Should I expect a call from [Court Service Official] or who is the accessability [sic] arranged. Thank you, Joan Delaney”

35. From: [applicant] Sent: 16 October 2025 03:56 To: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Subject: FAO Ms [List Registrar] Dear Ms. [List Registrar], I note you are CC my reply emails to no less than 7 people.

6 of whom are working with Field Fisher.

This is over sharing and over facilitating in my view.

Talk about a David and Goliath situation or in this case Davida and Goliath.

Can you please only share necessary communication and when you do with one representative of Field Fisher.

This is transparency on Cocaine.

A pity accountability does not have the same high input.

Kind regards Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

36. From: [applicant] Sent: 16 October 2025 04:32 To: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Subject:

Dear [List Registrar] Im [sic] just writing to you regarding my request for a recording of the hearing last Monday.

Oct 13th Are you saying that even if I make a request for this recording under FOI the only way that I can get it is to file a motion.

How can I respond thoroughly without this recording?

Can I get a transcript of the proceedings?

There is a very short time line within which to lodge an appeal and I want to be prepared.

Can you please advise me as to how I can get these court records ASAP.

Much appreciated, Thank you, Joan Delaney

Reply to emails 33-36 from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 2:36 PM To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney, With reference to the above proceedings and attached correspondence.

We are looking into the matters raised but in the meantime, we await the views of the opposing parties.

Kind Regards,

6 Attachments of previous emails

Reply from: [solicitor for the notice party] Sent: 16 October 2025 14:49 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie>; [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: RE: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear All, I confirm that the Notice Party has no difficulty with the Applicant being given 2 weeks to file her written submission in the matter.

The Notice Party would like to reserve its position in respect right to a reply to the Applicant’s written submission and we would suggest a 2 week period for the reply.

If the Applicant wishes to make a final reply we’d suggest a period of 1 week for such reply.

Kind regards, … Solicitor [phone number]

Reply from: [solicitor for the commission] Sent: 16 October 2025 15:12 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Cc: [applicant and opposing parties] Subject: BOR009/0180: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Registrar, We regret to hear of Ms. Delaney's difficulties with accessibility in court on Monday, and indeed we agree to whatever facilitation Ms Delaney requires.

With regard to Ms. Delaney making further submissions, we consent to same and the requested period of 2 weeks and would just ask that we are served with those submissions and are given an opportunity to respond if required as the Court deems appropriate.

As you know, our Firm is instructed by An Comisiun Pleanala in this and other matters, and we have a small team of dedicated solicitors for this sort of work. For convenience where multiple people in the team are dealing with different cases, we tend to copy eachother [sic] on emails. However, [name] is our main point of contact in this case with my oversight.

We are happy if it is easier for all the parties and the Court for only [name] and I to be copied.

If we can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards, … [note: due to oversight this email did not come to the attention of either the registrar dealing with the matter or the court until 11 November 2025]

37. From: [applicant] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 12:01:54 AM To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA

Dear Mr. [List Registrar], Thank you kindly for mediating my concerns and requests.

Im [sic] glad to hear the defending parties are being reasonable.

Im [sic] only now decompressing after my ordeal on Monday and hopefully will be more restored ASAP Kind regards, Joan Delaney W Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

38. From: [applicant] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 12:05:27 AM To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Staff Could you let me know if it is possible to submit a video showing the site and location of the field proposed for the Windfarm construction roadway.

I can send by a new USB by post as I know you have to be careful with out of house attachments.

Kind regards Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 17 October 2025 14:19 To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: RE: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney, Unfortunately, due to security policies we are unable to accept it via USB.

You can forward it to the court through sharefile using the following link: [link] Let me know is you have any issues accessing it.

1 Attachment: Email from applicant to Planning and Environment inbox on 17.10.25 at 00:02

Further correspondence from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 17 October 2025 14:39 To: [all parties] Subject: RE: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear All, Please find the updated order of the 29 th September amended via the slip rule with the removal of “[wrong name]” and the insertion of “Joan Delaney”.

Kind Regards,

1 Attachment: order updated

39. From: [applicant] Sent: 17 October 2025 15:07 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: Re: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Thank you.

I will try

Joan Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Further correspondence from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 20 October 2025 14:41 To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: RE: H.JR.2024.0001408 DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear All, Please find the order updated via the Slip Rule in the above matter with minor amendments underlined and in bold.

Kind Regards,

1 Attachment: order updated

Further correspondence from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 16:56 PM To: [all parties] Cc: JA to Humphreys J. <…> Subject: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear parties, The applicant requested details of the opposing submissions. To assist the applicant, the court is sending the parties a copy of the oral submissions opposing the grant of leave, as extracted from the recording of the leave hearing.

On 15 October 2025 the applicant requested 2 weeks for a submission, which the court will afford, so any submission must be delivered to the court by email to environment@courts.ie and copied to the opposing parties by 1 pm on 29 October 2025. The opposing parties can have a simultaneous period of 1 further week for a submission expiring at 1 pm on 5 November 2025 and the applicant can have a final further 1 week to reply which must be delivered to the court by email to environment@courts.ie and copied to the opposing parties by not later than 1 pm on 12 November 2025.

The court is not minded to entertain further correspondence seeking further time save in exceptional circumstances and grounded on affidavit evidence of a compelling nature. Following the final deadline (or following any intermediate deadline if no submissions are received) the court may give judgment without further notice.

Kind regards, … Attached: Opposing submissions extracted from DAR ver 4.docx

Reply from: [solicitor for the commission] Sent: 20 October 2025 17:11 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie>; [all parties] Cc: JA to Humphreys J. <…> Subject: RE: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Registrar, We acknowledge receipt of the copy of the oral submissions extracted from the recording of the leave hearing and note the timeline outlined for submissions and are grateful to the court for same.

Kind regards, …

40. From: [applicant] Sent: 20 October 2025 17:22

To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Cc: [applicant] Subject: Fwd: Application for time extension

3 Attachments: And Bord Pleanala granting letter.docx, letter to James Crowley copy.docx;

letter to the court registrar Nov 6th 24.docx

41. From: [applicant] Sent: 20 October 2025 17:32 To: [solicitor for the commission] Cc: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie>; [solicitor for the notice party]; JA to Humphreys J. <…> Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Registrars, Thank you for following through on my request for a copy of the transcript of the hearing.

Much appreciated.

I just sent you a cc message of the request letter sent to the courts in Nov. 2024 requesting extra time.

I sent it to the Non judicial review list.

As advised.

I never received a reply and just thought it had been ignored.

I will post to the shared file.

Kind regards Joan Delaney

42. From: [applicant] Sent: 22 October 2025 10:25 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear [List Registrar] and Co Registrars, Further to receipt of the transcript of the JR List hearing please see the attached letter.

Kind regards, Joan Delaney

1 Attachment in word: request for full transcript of hearing Oct 13th.docx 22nd October 2025 Dear Registrars, Thank you for forwarding me the transcript from Oct 13th.

However it only has the defence’s input and does not include mine.

Why was this?

For context and clarity I need the full transcript.

Can you please forward the full transcript to me as soon as possible.

Thank you Joan Delaney

43. From: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 22 October 2025 11:12 To: [all parties] Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney, As per our previous emails, all correspondence sent to the court must include all parties.

I attach the correspondence here with all parties included.

Kind regards, …

1 Attachment in word: request for full transcript of hearing Oct 13th.docx

44. From: [applicant] Sent: 22 October 2025 14:43 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear [List Registrar] Can you explain why you are CC ing to 6 Field Fisher staff.

Why are you facilitating their in house administration.

This is a form of institutional intimidation. One lay person against the might of the state.

One sick lay person.

I have no issue notifying Turnkey and 1 agent for Field Fisher but I think notifying 6 people goes beyond the call of duty.

Can you respond to my request as to whether you will be forwarding the full transcript or not.

I will be submitting a medical certificate.

I am exhausted and unwell from all this carry on. My blood pressure has gone through the roof.

I also intend writing to the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste regarding this matter.

If necessary I will go to the media.

I have serious medical issues including severe [condition 2] which is untreatable as I can't handle the [medical device].

The ESB have to be notified about people who need medical devices in case of power cuts.

Yet a huge development causing huge upheaval is allowed to go ahead beside me.

Beggars belief.

This sort of behaviour has to be stopped.

Regards Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 22 October 2025 15:34 To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: RE: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney and parties, Please find attached the applicant’s submission.

In relation to cc-ing parties when contacting the court – this is outlined clearly in Practice Direction HC 126 Part 1 (6) which states that:

“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.”

Kind regards, …

1 Attachment in word: Delaney v ABP applicant’s submission.docx

45. From: [applicant] Sent: 22 October 2025 16:39 To: Planning & Environment environment@courts.ie Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Registrar Can you please share this link. [YouTube link] I will upload to the Shared File also.

Thank you Joan Delaney

46. From: [applicant] Sent: 22 October 2025 16:41

To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Registrar, I am formally requesting that you share communications with the parties only Singular.

One representative from each party.

Not the 6 from Field Fisher already referred to.

Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: Thu 23/10/2025 15:47 To: [applicant] Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney, Your email has been noted.

Any future applications to the Court must be made by filed Notice of Motion and grounding Affidavit.

Kind regards

47. From: [applicant] Sent: 23 October 2025 16:58 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: Re: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms. [List Registrar], Can you explain what you mean by applications.

Are you referring to my email regarding CCing or other.

Please advise.

Thank you Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment Sent: 29 October 2025 12:18 To: [applicant] Cc: [opposing parties] Subject: RE: Message to parties in Case 2024 1408 JR - DELANEY v AN BORD PLEANALA Dear Ms Delaney Yes. This, or any other application to the Court, should be made by way of filed Notice of Motion and grounding Affidavit.

As this query has now been responded to we will not be corresponding on this issue any further.

Kind regards

48. From: [applicant] Sent: 29 October 2025 12:25 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Joan Delaney Submission Dear Registrars, Please see enclosed.

Yours sincerley [sic], Joan Delaney Attached document: letter seeking time ext for Oct 29 submission.docx

49. From: [applicant] Sent: Wed 29/10/2025 12:34

To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Joan Delaney Submission Dear Registrars, I have submitted my Submission a little while ago by separate emails.

Kind regards, Joan Delaney

50. From: [applicant] Sent: Wed 29/10/2025 13:21 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Joan Delaney Submission Dear [Registrar name] I have complied by sending my submission to Enetco and Field Fishers representative [name].

Thank you Joan Delaney

Reply to email 48 from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 29 October 2025 14:26 To: [all parties] Subject: Re: Joan Delaney Submission Dear Ms Delaney, As set out in earlier correspondence the court is not minded to extend the time frame for submissions save by way of formal application on an evidential showing of exceptional circumstances, which do not apply. The court will however accept your "draft" submission as being your submission for the purposes of the deadline directed by the court. By way of reminder, the opposing parties must reply by 1 pm on 5 November with a final submission by the applicant by 1 pm on 12 November.

Kind regards …

November 2025

51. From: [applicant] Sent: 5 November 2025 07:36 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Joan Delaney Submission Dear Registrars, Im [sic] emaiing [sic] you pre the receipt of the defence response.

I had to go to [medical centre 3] at 11pm last night due to unresolving [condition 3].

I won't be able to respond to the Defence submission until my [condition 3] is stabilised.

This has been brought on by the stress and pressure of situations previously identified inspite [sic] of requests for time on medical grounds.

Im [sic] just letting you know now so that it can't be said my illness was a result of reading the Defence submission and a way out of responding within the time frame given.

Kind regards, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: [solicitor for notice party] Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:04 AM To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie>; [all parties] Subject: Joan Delaney Leave Application. Record No. 2024:1408 JR Dear All,

Please see attached submissions of the Notice Party on the Leave Application in the above matter.

Kind regards,

Reply from: [solicitor for the commission] Sent: 5 November 2025 09:11 To: [solicitor for the notice party]; Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie>;

[applicant] Cc: [solicitors for the commission] Subject: RE: Joan Delaney Leave Application. Record No. 2024:1408 JR Dear All, Please find attached the submissions of the Respondent on the Leave Application in this matter in word and pdf.

Kind regards,

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 5 November 2025 10:12 To: [all parties] Dear all, Thank you for your correspondences and submissions (copies attached for ease of reference).

As previously stated the Court is not minded to extend the time frame for submissions time save in exceptional circumstances which the Court is not satisfied apply.

Accordingly the Applicant has until 1pm on Wednesday the 12 th November 2025 to furnish any further written submissions and, whether such submissions are furnished by that deadline or not, judgment will be delivered shortly thereafter.

Kind regards

52. From: [applicant] Sent: 5 November 2025 12:07 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: 2024 1408 JR Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear [List Registrar] Are you referring to my earlier email letting you know I was having a [medical event] and not believing this qualifies as an exceptional event.

I think this more than qualifies for an exceptional circumstance.

Im [sic] sending you photos of the [specified condition] monitor etc.

Currently in [medical centre 4] on [monitoring] awaiting [test 3] results and further tests and treatment for [condition 3] etc.

There is no earthly way I am able to respond to the Defence submissions returned.

I am not even going to look at them as my [specified condition] rate escalates with stress.

I will be asking the [specialisation 2 identified] to give his medical opinion and advise accordingly.

Regards Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 6 November 2025 10:38 To: [all parties] Dear Ms Delaney I acknowledge receipt of your email below and note the contents of same. I confirm my email of yesterday referred to your email of yesterday morning.

Applications to the Court may be made by way of filed Notice of Motion and grounding Affidavit.

Kind regards

53. From: [applicant] Sent: 6 November 2025 10:44 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: 2024 1408 JR Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Im [sic] actually in the hospital at the moment.

Your replies are noted.

I will be sending a doctors [sic] letter into you.

I sent you a photo yesterday showing the [medical device 2].

Regards Joan Delaney

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025, 10:50 Subject: Re: 2024 1408 JR Delaney v An Bord Pleanála To: [all parties] Forwarding email from applicant dated 06/11/25 at 10:44 to all parties

54. From: [applicant] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025, 11:05 Subject: Re: 2024 1408 JR Delaney v An Bord Pleanála To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Dear [List Registrar] Your response is extraordinary in view of circumstances outlined.

All of your responses will be given in evidence when necessary.

My health comes first and foremost.

I cannot risk having a [condition 4] in order to comply with your unbelievable hardline attitude.

As outlined yesterday I am not medically fit to study the Defences [sic] responses never mind compile my responses.

This situation was brought on in the first place by the stress of this situation.

You can accept or decline the Doctors medical opinion.

As the Court is not medically qualified I cannot understand your hardline attitude.

What is the huge rush at the moment?

Is there a life and death matter?

Apart from my precarious [condition 3] which has now deteriorated to needing permanent treatment.

Regards Joan Delaney

55. From: [applicant] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025, 11:09 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Forwarding previous email to P&E mailbox

Reply to emails 54 and 55 from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 6 November 2025 16:49 To: [all parties] Subject: Application for adjournment Dear all, Please see attached correspondence.

Correspondence should be copied to all parties and will be forwarded to parties who are not included in the original recipient list.

Kind regards

2 Attachments: Emails from applicant dated 06/11/2025 at 11:05 and 11:09

56. From: [applicant] Sent: 8 November 2025 17:07 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Application for adjournment Dear Registrar, Please see enclosed.

kind regards, Joan Delaney Joan Delaney University of Life Ireland

3 Attachments: [named doctor] Cert Nov 25.pdf; [named medical centre] Cert Nov 25.docx;

letter to the JR Registrar and Defence re adjournment appl on med grounds.docx

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 10 November 2025 11:35 To: [all parties] Subject: Application for adjournment Email forwards 3 Attachments sent by applicant on 8 November 2025 at 17:07

Reply from: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Sent: 10 November 2025 13:56 To: [applicant] Cc: [all parties] Subject: Application for adjournment Dear Ms Delaney As previously stated, the court is not minded to alter the timelines for submissions absent exceptional circumstances and on foot of a formal application by way of Notice of Motion. In the absence of that, parties might take notice that judgment will be given forthwith following the expiry of the deadline for replying submissions (1 pm on Wednesday 12 November)

whether submissions are emailed to the court or not by that time.

Kind regards

57. From: [applicant] Sent: 10 November 2025 14:03 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Application for adjournment Dear [List Registrar] Can you please define exceptional circumstances.

I would be very interested to read your criteria re same.

Maybe a death certificate might satisfy Judge Humphreys.

Regards Joan Delaney

58. From: [applicant] Sent: 10 November 2025 14:32 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: Application for adjournment Dear [List Registrar]

As my serious health condition is not being entertained and due cognizance of the fact that I am a Lay Litigant is also not being recognised I anticipate that I will have to go to the Court of Appeal.

You seriously expect me while Ill to be able to deal with unfamiliar court procedures in order to lodge medical evidence when the court uses emails all the time for every other submission.

I have to see my GP at 3.30 for repeat [test 4] with view to Hospital admission and the Court behaves in such a Draconian, unreasonable, unprofessional, unsafe manner.

Unless you have your own doctor to pass me fit your behaviour is reckless.

You use the umbrella term of Court.

Can you please send me the instruction/order/directive from the Court Judge/Other who has given this decision not to accomodate [sic] my very reasonable request.

I wish to see accountability in this matter and would like to see this decision in writing from the actual decision maker. Instead of an anonymous decision maker.

I am also requesting under GDPR and FOI Legislation all records concerning my case.

In paper and digital format.

To include the fulfillment [sic] of my original request for the recording and Transcript in its entirety of the Oct 13th Court appearance.

Regards Joan Delaney

59. From: [applicant] Sent: 12 November 2025 17:46 To: Planning & Environment <environment@courts.ie> Subject: Re: 2024 1408 JR Delaney v An Bord Pleanála Dear [List Registrar] I note that the case is listed for December.

Can you explain why this is the case when judgment is being delivered tomorrow.

Regards Joan Delaney