THE High Court will dismiss as “frivolous and vexatious” a couple’s case seeking to prevent the demolition of their large house which was built around 18 years ago without planning permission.

Plumber Chris Murray and his wife Rose have taken legal action despite agreeing to vacate their 588m² family home so it can be demolished in September 2022.

They claimed new information had come to light, meaning the court should overturn the agreement and previous court orders requiring them to vacate the premises.

In May 2017, the Supreme Court upheld High Court orders requiring them to remove unauthorized development from their land at Faughan Hill, Bohermeen, Navan, Co Meath. The Supreme Court gave them a year to vacate the property, which the court said had been “deliberately built in flagrant violation of planning laws”.

This order to leave the premises was not respected and Meath County Council filed a motion in March 2019 requesting that the Murrays be brought to court for alleged contempt of a court order.

The motion was unsuccessful as the two parties reached a settlement agreement in September 2020, in which the Murrays agreed to vacate the property within two years to facilitate its demolition by the council.

Three days before the deadline to leave expired, the Murrays filed a new complaint against Meath County Council. Their action sought to suspend enforcement orders and injunctions from the High Court and Supreme Court preventing the local authority from taking enforcement action.

They claimed there was new evidence regarding land sterilization deals made by the previous owners of their land. They said so and a recent High Court judgment struck down planning refusals for their home.

The council asked the court to dismiss the case.

The context was set out in the judgment of Justice Conor Dignam, who said he was “compelled to conclude” that the Murrays’ claim should be struck out. He agreed with council that this was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

He noted that judicial review proceedings challenging a planning decision must be commenced within eight weeks of the decision, unless the High Court grants an extension on the basis of a council having deliberately or fraudulently concealed information. The Murrays made no such challenge, the judge said in dismissing their case.

The Murrays were refused planning permission in 2006, but began building a house considerably larger than the one they had applied for.

The council wrote to them in 2007 asking for the “unauthorized development” to be removed, leading the Murrays to seek permission to retain the building. The municipality and An Bord Pleanála rejected this application, as well as a subsequent application seeking permission to demolish parts of the house and retain the rest.

Meath County Council began its enforcement proceedings in June 2007.

As part of their soon-to-be-dismissed case, the couple said they had again applied for planning permission for their home.

Justice Dignam noted the advice and An Bord Pleanála rejected the application before handing down his decision. However, he was told the Murrays subsequently reapplied for planning permission.