Planning judicial review reform

The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill proposes significant changes to the judicial review system in Ireland. It also sets out other reforms aiming to streamline and modernise civil procedure. Our Planning & Environment team discuss the proposed reforms of planning judicial reviews and the next steps for the Bill.

What you need to know

• The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 was published by the Government in January 2026
• The General Scheme proposes sweeping changes to civil litigation in Ireland, particularly regarding judicial review
• Under the Scheme, the ability to bring judicial review proceedings will likely be made more difficult for applicants. Consideration of the public interest will carry greater significance in the context of the availability of remedies
• The Government is prioritising the drafting of the Bill in its Spring 2026 Legislation Programme

The General Scheme of the Civil Reform Bill 2025 was published on 6 January 2026. The General Scheme proposes significant changes to the judicial review system in Ireland, including in relation to planning challenges. It also proposes reforms aiming to streamline and modernise civil procedure.

The General Scheme was introduced as part of the State’s efforts to address national infrastructure delivery challenges. The General Scheme is a key measure that will see the implementation and expansion of many of the recommendations of the Review of the Administration of Civil Justice Report, known as the “Kelly Report”. The Kelly Report was published in October 2020. The General Scheme is also intended to support the Government’s Accelerating Infrastructure Action Plan, discussed in our recent article and video update.

Judicial review

Reforms under the General Scheme aim to streamline the judicial review (JR) process by placing it on a statutory basis. The General Scheme also introduces new, restrictive rules around the availability of the remedy. As there is not a leave stage under Part 9 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 (PDA 2024), these reforms only apply to the substantive stage of JRs brought under PDA 2024.

Importantly, Head 3 of the General Scheme proposes the repeal of section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (PDA 2000). Therefore, the reforms proposed under the General Scheme are likely intended to apply to JRs taken under the PDA 2000.

The leave stage

The General Scheme introduces stringent criteria for leave to apply for judicial review. Leave will only be granted if certain criteria are fulfilled, including that:

• There are arguable grounds that a remedy should be granted and that granting the remedy would provide a “significant benefit” to the applicant
• The claim has a reasonable prospect of success, and
• The issue is appropriate for the court and not of a minor nature

To satisfy these standing requirements, an applicant must be “directly affected” by the challenged act and have a sufficient interest in the matter. The General Scheme also proposes a shortened time limit of eight weeks for general judicial review applications to be made. This time limit currently only applies to planning judicial reviews. Applications to extend this period are subject to strict criteria and a cap of 16 weeks.

The court will consider all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of parties, in determining leave applications. These requirements, in particular, the “significant benefit” test, will likely make it more difficult for applicants to be granted leave to apply for judicial review.

As previously noted, judicial review applications taken under Part 9 of the PDA 2024 do not have a leave stage, so the above changes do not apply to these applications. However, it will apply to JRs brought under the 2000 Act, as these have a leave stage.

The substantive stage

Head 8 of the General Scheme limits the availability of the remedy to cases where the following conditions are met:

• The respondent has acted unlawfully
• The applicant has suffered harm or prejudice
• Any error of law, or procedural error, was material to the decision
• The interests of justice require the granting of relief, having regard to both the interests of the applicant and the “public interest”, and
• The granting of relief provides a “significant benefit” to the applicant

The inclusion of “public interest” and “significant benefit” tests may limit the availability of judicial review remedies, depending on how these terms are defined and interpreted. The Government has described the public interest test as central to the judicial review reforms. These proposals reflect a wider policy concern around ensuring balance and the protection of the common good in the administration of justice, particularly in the context of infrastructure delivery.

Applications for judicial review taken under Part 9 of the PDA 2024 are not exempt from the changes under Head 8. To be granted relief, applications under Part 9 of the PDA 2024 must satisfy the requirements set out under Head 8, subject to certain exemptions.

Exemptions for certain environmental groups

Some of the requirements listed under Head 8 above do not apply to JR applications where section 286(2) of the PDA 2024 applies. These requirements are that:

• The applicant has suffered harm or prejudice
• The granting of the remedy provides a significant benefit to the applicant, and
• Costs may only be awarded to an applicant where the final decision of the court provides a significant benefit to that applicant

Section 286(2) of the PDA 2024 exempts certain environmental groups from the general rule that applicants must be directly or indirectly materially affected by a matter in order to have a sufficient interest to take JR proceedings.

This section applies to JR proceedings relating to:

1. Developments or actions that may have significant effects on the environment, or on a European site, or
2. An act or omission by any person, relating to the environment, that causes a breach of the PDA 2024

In these environmental cases where section 286(2) applies, applicants are not required to demonstrate harm, prejudice, or that the remedy would benefit them personally. The new costs rules, as set out in Head 8, also do not apply.

Appeals

Another notable reform concerns appeals of general judicial review determinations to the Court of Appeal. Under Head 12 of the General Scheme, appeal of a decision of the Circuit or High Court would be permitted only where:

• A question of “exceptional public importance” is certified, and
• An appeal is desirable in the public interest

Head 12 does not apply to judicial review applications taken under Part 9 of the PDA 2024. This is because an appeal from the High Court for this type of application can only be made to the Supreme Court.

Costs

Under the General Scheme, costs can only be awarded to an applicant where the final decision of the court provides a significant benefit to them. This represents a significant departure from current practice, where the court has discretion as to costs.

JR proceedings taken by certain environmental groups to which section 282(2) PDA 2024 applies are exempt from this costs provision.

Next steps

The Bill has been listed for priority drafting in the Spring 2026 Legislative Programme. Notably, in response to the publication of the Bill, both the Council of the Bar of Ireland and the Law Society of Ireland have made submissions to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration criticising certain aspects of the Bill.

The Joint Committee will have to consider these submissions carefully, along with other submissions from various stakeholders, before finalising the draft Bill this spring.

Conclusion

The reforms proposed under the General Scheme have the potential to transform civil litigation in Ireland. By codifying the judicial review process, limiting the availability of the remedy, and embedding public interest considerations into the substantive stage, the General Scheme prioritises efficiency, proportionality and meaningful remedies over technical review. The parallel reforms to discovery, civil procedure and monetary jurisdiction further reinforce this policy direction, aiming to reduce delay and costs across the system.

While the final shape of the legislation will be subject to scrutiny and refinement, particularly in light of submissions made by stakeholders, the General Scheme provides a clear indication of the Government’s intention to recalibrate the balance between access to the courts and the efficient administration of justice. However, given the potentially limited application of the proposed changes to planning JRs, particularly regarding challenges taken by qualifying environmental groups, it remains to be seen whether the General Scheme will meaningfully impact the State’s infrastructure delivery challenges.

For expert guidance on planning and environmental litigation in Ireland, contact a member of our Planning & Environment team.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

People also ask