The Appellants were a recently incorporated company ("Lancefort") which had not participated in the proceedings yet sought to judicially review a decision to grant planning permission on certain sites. In those proceedings, the applicant was a company limited by guarantee which had been formed following the decision of An Bord Pleanála to grant planning permission for a hotel development in the centre of Dublin. The members of the company had been involved in a campaign to overturn the decision of An Bord Pleanála because it granted permission for the demolition of listed buildings. The illegality alleged against the planning permission was that no environmental impact statement had been submitted, in breach of European law and Irish law requirements. The High Court had granted standing. There was a tension between two principles: (a) to ensure that unlawful legislation or practice did not escape scrutiny; and (b) to ensure that remedies were not abused. A reasonably general approach to standing was appropriate where the challenge related to legislation or acts which affected the interests of all citizens equally. The statutory planning regime required that "substantial grounds" for contending unlawfulness be shown at the leave stage. Judicial review was not to be used as a further appeal.
Although Lancefort did not exist at the time of the impugned decision, members of Lancefort had been present during the planning process in their individual capacity yet had not raised the objections now made.The Supreme Court did not refuse locus standi on the basis that the corporate applicant was formed after the decision and was not affected by the decision to which the application for judicial review related and was not affected in any way by the planning permission – although these considerations are mentioned. The basis of the ruling is that no explanation was offered to the Supreme Court as to why the absence of an environmental impact statement was not addressed to An Bord Pleanála when the members of the corporate applicant had appeared there at an oral hearing represented by counsel. The court decided that it would be unfair and unjust to the developer Notice Party to be required to face an allegation as to the absence of an environment impact statement when this could have been addressed to the boardIt would be unjust to ask the party granted planning permission to defend proceedings where an alleged irregularity could previously have been, but was not, brought to their attention. The facts did not indicate an abuse of power sufficiently grave so as to afford standing to a body such as Lancefort. In a dissenting opinion Denham J commented that it was important to distinguish the "substantial grounds" requirement from the question of standing.