Two Co Meath residents’ appeals of Glenveagh planning applications were leveraged as “barter” in a bid to extract a higher price for a sale of lands, the High Court has heard.
Aidan Redmond, senior counsel for Glenveagh Homes Limited, disputed the contention that Pat Lynch and Denise Leavy were motivated by a “genuine interest” in participating in the public planning process.
He said Mr Lynch, an insurance consultant, revealed the submissions and appeals were for an “improper purpose” when he advised Glenveagh he could make them “go away”.
A balance must be struck “between someone who is bona fide engaged in public participation and someone who is out to feather his own nest”, he submitted to the court.
Mr Redmond was responding on Tuesday to a motion brought by Mr Lynch and Ms Leavy, a retired banking official, asking the court to dismiss the developer’s €8 million damages claim against them as an abuse of process and bound to fail. They argue it amount to strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP).
Glenveagh denies its action is SLAPP or designed to intimidate.
The firm claims the pair, both of Batterstown, Proudstown, Navan, have unlawfully abused the planning process with the “predominant purpose of leveraging an improved bargain” for Mr Lynch in selling 16 acres of his Co Meath lands.
This and all other allegations are strongly denied by the defendants.
Glenveagh’s chief executive, Stephen Garvey, has sworn an affidavit in the case alleging the defendants have used “fictitious aliases” to make submissions and appeals that were “highly targeted” at Glenveagh’s developments.
From March 2021 to June 2023, he said, “Denis Leavy”, “D Leavy”, “DM Leavy” and Mr Lynch filed 17 observations and five appeals of Glenveagh applications, most of which concern proposed developments outside the defendants’ locality.
Their “campaign of tortious interference” has led to “considerable, unexpected difficulty” delivering residential schemes in counties Meath, Dublin, Louth, Westmeath, Kildare and Waterford, Mr Garvey added.
On Tuesday, Mr Redmond, instructed by AMOSS, told the court the defendants asked Glenveagh to purchase zoned lands in Clonmagadden, Navan, at €700,000 per acre but, after being rebuffed, sought €500,000 per acre.
The proposed price tags are “enormous by any stretch of the imagination” and when compared to the €160,000 per acre Glenveagh had recently paid for a nearby site, he said.
An indicative deal was reached in May 2021 for his client to purchase the lands for more than €7.6 million, working out at €450,000 an acre, said Mr Redmond, appearing with Niall Handy SC and Kevin Bell BL.
However, a series of submissions and appeals were made by the defendants in the months that followed. Eleven such observations were made after his client issued this case, suggesting the defendants “were not remotely cowed” by the litigation.
The court should not dispose of his case before it reaches trial as there is a significant dispute about facts, complex legal issues and the discovery of documents process is likely to assist his client’s claim, he added.
The defendants’ senior counsel, Stephen Dodd, instructed by FP Logue solicitors, submitted that the €8 million damages pricetag is disproportionate, giving it the “hallmarks of a SLAPP”.
His clients have been participating in a public process, and this action is designed to send a “clear message” that this carries an “unaffordable risk”, he said.
Another indicator of an oppressive intention is the request for an “extraordinary” injunctive-style order permanently restraining Mr Lynch and Ms Leavy from making observations on Glenveagh planning applications, he said.
There is no authority or jurisdiction for such an order, he submitted.
An Bord Pleanála has accepted his clients’ appeals and submissions as valid, he added.
Mr Dodd, appearing with John Kenny BL, noted Glenveagh claims the defendants’ “primary or predominant” motive in their observations and appeals was to cause injury to its business.
This falls short of the relevant legislation, which gives the board a discretion to dismiss an appeal it considers is made with the “sole intention” of securing money, gifts or inducements, he said.
Including the word “sole” was “clearly a policy choice” to recognise that, in reality, people making planning submissions often have a “complex cocktail” of motives, he said.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said he will try to deliver his decision on the defendants’ motion by early next week.
In a sworn statement, Ms Leavy said she owns one acre of land near Mr Lynch’s and the price offered by Glenveagh for the lands was acceptable but negotiations broke down.
She denied submissions or appeals were used to negotiate a higher price for their land and took “grave exception” to the claim she used a false identity.
Mr Lynch “wholly rejected” the developer’s “entirely groundless” claim and said he believed some of Glenveagh’s planning applications were not satisfactory and would be unsustainable if built.
The objections were made with “no vexatious intent” and per planning laws, he added in his affidavit.
