Court dismisses injunction aimed at reversing Malahide pedestrianisation

The High Court has dismissed an application for an injunction reversing Fingal County Council’s decision to pedestrianise part of Malahide Village in north Co Dublin.

Mr Justice Charles Meenan on Wednesday ruled that company director Nicola Byrne had not satisfied the court that her case was strong enough to allow the court to grant the injunction sought.

The judge adjourned her main challenge against the council’s decision to a date in October.

The court in June granted Ms Byrne permission to challenge the council’s decision to pedestrianise New Street, a move that commenced over the June bank holiday weekend.

The council, which denies any wronging, says the temporary measures are necessary to aid and facilitate outdoor dining and social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic. The street was previously pedestrianised between June and November of last year.

Ms Byrne, who lives nearby on Old Street, Malahide, claims the council’s decision is flawed and should be set aside as it lacks the legal authority to implement the changes.

Anti-social behaviour

She claims the decision has created traffic issues in the area and caused more anti-social behaviour.

She sought various orders including injunctions stopping the council from pedestrianising the street and diverting traffic in Malahide, and reserving all steps it has taken in these regards.

The injunctions, if granted, would have remained in place until her full judicial review action was determined by the court.

Ms Byrne sought them as she claims that her main action may not be heard this year. She claims the action may become moot as a result as the justification for the pedestrianisation may have expired by then. This, she claims, would allow the council to achieve its aims without having to comply with various legal requirements.

The council opposed the injunction application and rejects all of the arguments advanced by Ms Byrne in her full action.

Mr Justice Meenan said Ms Byrne was effectively seeking the same relief in the injunction application as in her main action. In such a scenario, he said, the threshold that Ms Byrne needed to reach to be granted mandatory injunctions is high.

Not satisfied

However, the court said the court was not satisfied that the material put before it, including on issues of European law, were strong enough to convince the court that her case was likely to succeed.

He added that there were disputes on issues of fact in the case, which the court could not resolve at this stage.

The judge noted that Ms Byrne had set out in “graphic detail” the levels of anti-social behaviour which she claims her family has had to endure as a result of the pedestrianisation of the street.

The judge said responsibility for anti-social behaviour primarily lies with those engaged in such activities and was a matter for An Garda Síochána. The balance of justice did not favour the granting the injunctions, the judge added.

The judge said he had to take into account that the decision was made to facilitate on-street dining and social distancing requirements, and those involved in the hospitality sector.

Quashing

In her judicial review action - against the council and the Minister for Local Government, Ireland and the Attorney General - Ms Byrne seeks various orders and declarations.

These include orders quashing the local authority’s decision to pedestrianise New Street, and declarations that the decision is invalid.

Ms Byrne claims that the pedestrianisation of New Street has seen additional traffic being put onto narrow unsuitable streets in Malahide, which were supposed to be prioritised for cycling and walking.

The council’s proposal did not go through Environmental Impact and Appropriate Assessments before it proceeded, she claims. The main action will be mentioned before the court in October.