Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Is the intention to create a dynamic whereby it becomes prohibitively expensive for applicants? If they lose in the High Court, they may be told that they cannot go to the Court of Appeal, but they must go because the other party, against whom a judicial review is being sought, may say that it wants to take it to the Supreme Court. Taking it to the Supreme Court, of course, comes with considerable extra costs and expense. It is also a question of the appropriateness of moving it directly to the Supreme Court.

Coming back to my amendment, we are concerned specifically with the appropriateness of creating a new channel of additional work for the Supreme Court and telling the court that it needs to act expeditiously on that specific matter.This section rings alarm bells and I am speaking to both the section and amendment, but they are integrated. I ask the Minister to clarify two points. Is the major change being made around any party to the appeal? Is it anticipated that this leapfrog mechanism will be used much more than it has been because it has not been used very often? Why is it being used in respect of these large-scale residential developments, given that the Court of Appeal has not been a major feature in relation to strategic housing developments? Crucially, is the language in subsection (15) appropriate? Should it be revised?