THE HIGH COURT

RECORD NO. 2002/3049P

BETWEEN
STEPHEN DEVANEY, PETER McDONALD, FRANCIS LYNCH, 
VIVIENNE O’RIORDAN, MAURA O’MARA, MICHAEL O’LEARY,
MICHAEL TYNAN, KEVIN CALLAN, DAVID LANE, RAYMOND MURRAY, PAUL GUERET, FRANK KANE, BRIGID TANSEY, MICHAEL QUINN,
ANGELA ANDERSON, PETER DEE, MICHAEL WALSH,
BOB STEWART, EOIN O’BRIEN, DAVID EARLE, CHRIS HEHIR,
UNA MacMANUS, MAIREAD MEHIGAN, MARIA POWELL, DIARMUID O’DONOGHUE, EOGHAN HARRIS,
GEORGE STRINGER, MARY McDERMOTT, CHRIS MEEHAN,
CHRISTOPHER QUINN, CHARLES KIERNAN, WILLIAM COFFEY,
KEVIN BYRNE, PHILIP BYRNE, PETER ROUGHNEEN 
AND EDWARD MAUGHAN
PLAINTIFFS
AND
DUN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL AND 
THE COUNTY MANAGER OF DUN LAOGHAIRE/RATHDOWN
 COUNTY COUNCIL 
DEFENDANTS
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Lavan delivered the 23rd day of May 2003.
The first named Plaintiff is Chairman of the Monkstown, Seapoint and Salthill Residents’ Association and all of the Plaintiffs are residents of the Monkstown and Seapoint Conservation Area in County Dublin.
The first named Defendant is a County Council and has responsibility for the enactment of Byelaws for the functional area of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown.  The second named Defendant is the Manager of the first named Defendant County Council.
On or about the 2nd day of July, 2001, the elected members of the first named Defendant at a duly convened meeting considered draft Parking Control Byelaws for the functional area of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown.  The making of the said Byelaws was at all material times a reserved function within the meaning of the County Management Acts 1940 to 1972.  The said draft Byelaws had been the subject of consultation with local Residents’ Association in the said functional area including the Monkstown, Seapoint and Salthill Residents Association.  Following upon the said consultations and arising from the various representation made to local councillors in respect of the draft Byelaws, a number of the elected members proposed motions during the course of the said meeting held on the 2nd day of July 2001 seeking to amend or otherwise touching upon the said draft Byelaws.
At all material times, the Monkstown and Seapoint Area was designated as an area of special conservation in the County Development Plan of 1998 for the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council functional area.  Pursuant to representations made to them by members of the public, including the Plaintiffs, Councillor Victor Boyhan, seconded by Councillor Fiona O’Malley, tabled a number of proposals, comprised in one composite motion paper entitled “Parking Byelaws Amendments”, which proposed effecting a number of amendments to the draft Byelaws, and which included the following proposal (hereinafter referred to as Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(34))
“MACHINES
17.(?) That no parking machine ticket dispenser will be placed in a Conversation Area or  placed in the immediate vicinity of a Protected Structure so as to interfere with its setting  or visual appearance.”
	Following upon the presentation by the elected members of their said proposals at the said meeting of the elected members held on July 2nd 2001, the said proposals were duly circulated and the said meeting was adjourned to allow the elected members to consider them.  Upon the resumption of the adjourned meeting, the Defendants, by themselves, their servants, officers and/or agents purported to categorise the said proposal into “amendments” and “motions” without either first consulting with the elected members, or without explaining the basis upon which the said distinction was being drawn; and advised the elected members to vote on the amendments to the Byelaws first, and thereafter to vote on the motions.  The Defendants by themselves, their servants, officers and/or agents purported to categorise Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) as a motion, and not as an amendment.  Following a show of hands of the elected members, Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) was duly carried.
	The Defendants have since contended that the categorisation by the Defendants, their servants, officer and/or agents of the said proposals of the elected members into “amendments” and “motions” required to be carried out pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Orders which regulate meetings of the elected members of the first named Defendant; and that the categorisation of  Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) as a “motion” and not as an “amendment” had the consequence in law of rendering the decision by the elected members to resolve in favour of the said motion as being insufficient at law to validly amend the said draft Byelaws.
In fact and in law, the said resolution of the elected members in favour of adopting Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3) was effective in law to validly amend the draft Byelaws so as to incorporate Councillor Boyhan's said proposals and the view of the Defendants to the contrary is bad and of no legal effect.  Further, the categorisation by the Defendants, their servants officers and/or agents of the said proposals into "motions" and "amendments" was likewise bad in law and of no legal effect.  Further and/or in the alternative, the resolution of the elected members to adopt Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3) comprised a lawful Order of the first named Defendant in relation to the exercise and performance of the reserved functions of the first named Defendant and required to be carried into effect by the Defendants pursuant to the provisions of section 31(2) of the County Management act 1940.  in the further alternative, the said resolution of the elected members adopting Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3) was one required to be respected and given effect to all material times by the Defendants.
On the 14th day of January 2002, the first named Defendant held a further meeting of its elected members at which a discussion took place on the Byelaws and the manner in which the amendments adopted at their previous meeting of the 2nd day of July 2001 had been reflected in the final Byelaws.  Following discussion and upon consideration of a report from the second named Defendant Councillor Boyhan seconded by Councillor MacDowell, proposed as follows:
"That the Parking Control Byelaws 2001 dated January 2002 as amended by 
(a)	The inclusion of the commencement date of 1st January 2002 and
(b)	The inclusion of the amendment of the Byelaws passed on the 2nd July 2001 and
(c)	The inclusion of the additional amendments as set out at paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the Manager's Report dated 14th January 2002 and
(d)	The inclusion of the additional amendment to Byelaw 28 proposed by the Manager at paragraph 4 of the said Report to read: In any one year the Council shall issue one parking permit per resident's car subject to satisfactory evidence of the applicant's bona fides, acceptable to the County Manager, or his delegated Officer being submitted with each application.
Are hereby approved by the Council"
The elected members of the first named Defendant duly resolved in favour of the said proposal and voted accordingly.
At all times material to the passing by the elected members of the said Resolution on January 14th 2002 the Defendants themselves, their servants and/or agents were aware and/or in the alternative ought to have been aware, that the said resolution proposed by councillor Boyhan proposing the adoption of the said Byelaws was intended to give full effect to, and to remove any doubt with regard to, the validity and binding nature of Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3).
Notwithstanding the matters aforesaid, and in breach of the said decisions and resolutions of the elected members of the First Named Defendant, the Defendants have failed to promulgate and/or implement the said Byelaws in accordance with the wishes of the elected members of the First named Defendant exercising their legal competence in a function reserved to them but on the contrary, have purported to promulgate and implement the said Byelaws without taking account of or including Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3).
In purported implementation of the Byelaws as adopted and approved by the elected members of the First Named Defendant, the Defendants in or about the month of February 2002 commenced the installation of Parking Machine Dispensers in the Monkstown and Seapoint Conservation Are in defiance of the express will and resolution of the elected members of the First Named Defendant, and thereby acted contrary to law until restrained by interim injunctive relief granted to the Plaintiffs herein by this Honourable Court at the commencement of the within proceedings.
The Byelaws as promulgated and/or implemented by the Defendants do nor reflect the specific amending resolution in relation to Ticket Dispensing Machines in the Conservation Area of Monkstown and Seapoint in accordance with Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3) and the said Byelaws as promulgated and implemented are invalid and do not reflect the legislative will of the elected members of the First Named Defendant.
Further and/or in the alternative, by purporting to ignore and disregard Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3), notwithstanding the fact that the elected members of the First Named Defendant resolved in favour of the said proposal, the Second Named Defendant failed to carry into effect a lawful order of the /Council of this Count, namely, Councillor Boyhan's 5(3) as passed by the elected members, in relation to the exercise and performance of the reserved functions of such Council contrary to the provisions of Section 31(2) of the County Management act 1940.
Furthermore, the Defendants in or about the months of February 2002 commenced the installation of metal poles on the footpaths in the said Conservation Area for the purposes of advising motorists of parking times and conditions.  Motion C252/01 passed on the 2nd day of July 2001 by the elected members had required "that plans for the placing of street furniture, traffic changes including road markings, be brought to the Council for approval".
The Defendants, and in particular, the Second named Defendant his servants and/or agents and officers, have acted in defiance of the resolutions of the elected members of the First Named Defendant passed that said meetings held on the 2nd day of July 2001 and the 14th day of January 2002, and in breach of the legitimate expectation of residents and Councillors, including the Plaintiff, that the said Defendants would respect the decisions of the elected members of the First Named Defendant taken pursuant to its reserved functions prescribed by statute.
Furthermore, the Defendants have acted in breach of fundamental principles of local democracy, which reserve functions to the duly elected members of the First named Defendant County Council including the making of the Byelaws the subject matter of these proceedings, and which the Defendants and their officials must not usurp or undermine as they have s done in this case.

PARTICULARS
At all times material to the enactment of the said Byelaws, the Second Named Defendant, his servants, agents and officers, had a formed view that the most desirable method of effecting parking control in the functional area of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown was through the use of parking tickets rather than by disc parking, and the acts and omissions of the Defendant in failing to give effect to the Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3) were carried out for the purpose of ensuring that their preferred method of parking control was put into effect notwithstanding that the elected members had expressly provided in the said Byelaws for disc parking and had resolved that no parking machine ticket dispensers were to be place in Conservation Areas.
Further and/or in the alternative, in choosing to disregard the collective will of the elected members of the First named Defendant with regard to the matters aforesaid pleaded, and the second Named Defendant, his servants, officers and/or agents acted unlawfully and in bad faith and/or in the knowledge that by so acting, they did so in excess of the powers conferred upon them by law, and with the knowledge that the Plaintiff would thereby suffer loss and damage in consequence.  Further and/or in the alternative the Second Named Defendant by himself his servants officers or agents acted recklessly in that they knew that there was, at minimum, a serious risk that the Plaintiffs would suffer loss due to their said acts and omissions, being acts and omissions which they knew to be unlawful; yet wilfully shoes to disregard the risk of injury to the Plaintiffs further and/or in that alternative, the Second named Defendant at by himself his servants and/or officers and/or agents acted in a manner aforesaid without honest belief that their acts were lawful instead proceeded with the express intention of disregarding the valid and lawful decision of the elected members acting with regard to a reserved function in the adoption by them of Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3).
The effect of the actions of the Defendants has been that no parking control system has been put in place in the Monkstown Seapoint Conservation Area against the express wishes of local residents, including the Plaintiffs, and of the elected members with regard to the provisions of the Byelaws as in fact approved intended to be and adopted by them at their said meeting on the 14th day of January 2002.  The effect of the foregoing has been that traffic in the said area is left unregulated. And undesirable, incomplete and partly erected street furniture has been left in places where such street furniture ought not to have been placed at all.  All of the foregoing has caused loss and damage including loss of amenity to local residents including the Plaintiffs herein.
By reason of the foregoing the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage.
ARISING FROM THE ABOVE THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THE FOLLOWING:-
(i)	A Declaration that the placing of Parking Machine Ticket Dispensers by the Defendant in the Conservation Area of Monkstown and Seapoint so designated by the First named Defendant's County development Plan 1998 is impermissible , unlawful and ultra vires;
(ii)	A Declaration that by reason of the adoption by the elected members of the First Named Defendant of Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3) referred to an amendment No C/255/01 to the draft Byelaws for certain parts of the functional area of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown to the effect that no parking machine itched dispensers would be placed in Conservation Area or placed in the immediate vicinity of a protected structure so as to interfere with it's sitting or visual appearance as passed by resolution at meetings held on the 2nd day of July 2001 and the 14th day of January 2002 the Parking Control Byelaws 2001 as presently promulgated by the Defendants have failed to reflects the said amendment validity passed by resolution of the elected members of the First Named Defendant on the said dates and re thereby invalid;
(iii)	A Declaration that the placing of street furniture by the Defendants pursuant to the provisions of the Parking Control Byelaws 2001 is impermissible, unlawful and ultra vires if the palms for the placing of same have not been placed before the elected members of the First Named Defendant for approval and duly approved by them;
(iv)	If necessary, a Declaration that the Second named Defendant in directing the placing of parking machine ticket dispensers in the Monkstown and Seapoint Conservation Area has failed, refused and/or neglected to abide by the said Parking Control Byelaws 2001 as adopted by the elected members of the First named Defendant and/or has acted contrary to section 3 of the County Management Act 1940;
(v)	An Injunction restraining the Defendants from placing street furniture pursuant to the Parking Control Byelaws 2001 in the Monkstown and Seapoint Conservation Area without first having the plans in connection herewith approved by the elected members of the First Named Defendant;
(vi)	And Injunction restraining the Defendants from placing or continuing to place or install the said machines in the Monkstown and Seapoint Area for so long as Councillor Boyhan's Motion 5(3), Amendment No. C/255/01 remains binding and in full force;
(vii)	A Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to remove any Parking Machine Ticket Dispensers and street furniture which have been so placed unlawfully in the said Monkstown and Seapoint Conservation Area;
(viii)	Further and other relief;

DEFENCE
	THE DEFENDATNS PLEAD AS FOLLOWS
The Defendants admit Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, save insofar as it is denied that the Motion, the subject matter of the proceedings herein, was at any time including the 2nd of July 2001, a Motion to amend the said Byelaw.
It is denied that Motion 5(3) which included a number of proposals (proposed by Councillor Victor Boyhan and seconded by Councillor Fiona O’Malley) allegedly comprised in one composite Motion paper entitled “Parking Byelaws Amendments” (including the following proposal “Machines 17(/) That no parking machine ticket dispenser will be placed in a Conversation Area or placed in the immediate vicinity of a Protected Structure so as to interfere with its setting or visual appearance”) proposed effecting a number of amendments to the draft Byelaws as alleged.
It is denied that the Defendants, by themselves, their servants, officers and/or agents purported to categorise the said proposal into amendments and motions without first consulting with the elected members or without explaining the basis upon which the distinction was being drawn and advised the elected members to vote on the amendments to the Byelaws first and thereafter to vote on the motions as alleged.
In the alternative if the Defendants, by themselves, their servants, officers and/or agents categorised the said proposals into amendments and motions without first consulting with the elected members or without explaining the basis upon which the distinction was being drawn and advised the elected members to vote on the amendments to the Byelaws first and thereafter to vote on the motions as alleged, it is denied that the said categorisation carried out as alleged or otherwise was in any way unlawful.
The Defendants admit the contents of Paragraph 6 of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim.
It is denied that in fact and in law the resolution of the elected members in favour of adopting Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) was effective in law to validly amend the draft Byelaws so as to incorporate Councillor Boyhan’s said proposals as alleged and it is denied that the view of the Defendants to the contrary is bad and of no legal effect as alleged.
It is denied that the categorisation by the Defendants, their servants, officers and/or agents of the said proposals into motions and amendments was likewise bad in law and of no legal effect as alleged.
Further and/or in the alternative, it is denied that the resolution of the elected members to adopt Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) comprised a lawful order of the First Named Defendant in relation to the exercise and performance of the reserved functions of the First Named Defendant and required to be carried into effect by the Defendants pursuant to the provisions of Section 31(2) of the County Management Act 1940 as alleged.
Further and/or in the alternative, it is denied that the said resolution of the elected members adopting Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) was one required to be respected and given effect to at all material times by the Defendants as alleged.
In the alternative the Defendants, their servants or agents, at all times respected and carried out its activities intra vires and in a lawful manner.
The contents of Paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim are admitted.
It is denied that the Defendants by themselves, their servants and/or agents were aware and/or in the alternative, ought to have been aware that the resolution proposed by Councillor Boyhan proposing the adoption of the said Byelaws was intended to give full effect to, and to remove any doubt with regard to, the validity and binding nature of Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) at all times material to the passing by the elected members of the said resolution on the 14th of January 2002 as alleged.
It is denied that the Defendants failed to promulgate and/or implement the said Byelaws in accordance with the wishes of the elected members of the First Named Defendant exercising their legal competence in a function reserved to them but on the contrary, have purported to promulgate and implement the said Byelaws without taking account of or including Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) as alleged and it is further denied in this regard that the Defendants and each and/or any one of them, acted in breach of the said decisions and resolutions of the elected members of the First Named Defendant as alleged.
It is denied that the Defendants and each and/or any one of them, in or about the month of February 2002 commenced the installation of Parking Machine Ticket Dispensers in the Monkstown and Seapoint Conservation Area in defiance of the express will and resolution of the elected members of the First Named Defendant and it is further denied that the Defendants acted contrary to law as alleged.
It is denied that the Byelaws as promulgated and/or implemented by the Defendants do not reflect the specific amending resolution in relation to Ticket Dispensing Machines in the Conservation Area of Monkstown and Seapoint in accordance with Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) and it is further denied that the said Byelaws as promulgated and implemented are invalid and do not reflect the legislative will of the elected members of the First Named Defendant as alleged.  In this regard it is denied that Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) amounts to a specific amending resolution in relation to Ticket Dispensing Machines in the Conservation Area of Monkstown and Seapoint as alleged. 
Further and/or in the alternative, it is denied that by purporting to ignore and disregard Counsellor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) as alleged, the Second Named Defendant has failed to carry into effect a lawful order of the county Council of his county, namely Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) as passed by the elected members, in relation to the exercise and performance of the reserved functions of such Council contrary to the provisions of Section 31(2) of the County Management Act 1940 as alleged.
It is denied that Motion C252/01 passed on the 2nd day of July 2001 by the elected members required that plans for the placing of street furniture, traffic changes including road markings, be brought to the Council for approval applied to the machines, the subject matter of the proceedings herein, as alleged by the Plaintiffs.
In the alternative it is denied that the Defendants have in any way failed to comply with any motion and/or resolution passed and/or adopted by the elected members as alleged in paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim or at all.
It is denied that the Defendants, and in particular the Second Named Defendant, its servants and/or agents and officers, have acted in defiance of the resolutions of the elected members of the First Named Defendant passed at the said meetings held on the 2nd of July 2001 and the 14th January 2002 and have acted in breach of the legitimate expectation of residents and councillors, including the Plaintiffs, that the Defendants would respect the decisions of the elected members of the First Named Defendant taken pursuant to its reserved functions prescribed by statute as alleged.
It is denied that the Defendants have acted in breach of fundamental principles of local democracy, which reserve functions to the duly elected members of the First Named Defendant County Council as alleged, including the making of Byelaws, the subject matter of these proceedings as alleged.  In this regard it is denied that the Defendants and their officials have usurped or undermined same, as alleged and each particular thereof set out in Paragraph 16 of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim is denied in full as if same were herein set forth and traversed seriatim.
Further and/or in the alternative, it is denied that the Defendants’ chose to disregard the collective will of the elected members of the First named Defendant with regard to the matters aforesaid pleaded and in this regard it is denied that the Second Named Defendant, his servants, officers and/or agents acted unlawfully and in bad faith and/or in the knowledge that by so acting they did so in excess of the powers conferred upon them by law and with the knowledge that the Plaintiffs would thereby suffer loss and damage in consequence as alleged.
Further and/or in the alternative, it is denied that the Second Named Defendant by himself, its servants, officers or agents, acted recklessly in that they knew that there was, at a minimum, a serious risk that the Plaintiffs would suffer loss due to their said acts and omissions as alleged, being acts and omissions which they knew to be unlawful as alleged and it is denied that the Defendants’ acts are unlawful as alleged and it is further denied that the Defendants, each and/or any of them, wilfully chose to disregard the risk of injury to the Plaintiffs as alleged.
Further, and/or in the alternative, it is denied that the Second Named Defendant by himself, his servants and/or officers and/or agents, acted in the manner aforesaid without honest belief that their acts were lawful and it is further denied that the said Defendants proceeded with the express intention of disregarding the valid and lawful decision of the elected members acting with regard to reserved function in the adoption by them of Councillor Boyhan’s Motion 5(3) as alleged.
It is denied that the effect of the actions of the Defendants has been that no parking control system has been put in place in the Monkstown Seapoint Conservation Area against the expresses wishes of local residents, as alleged, including the Plaintiffs and of the elected members with regard to the provisions of the Byelaws as alleged.  It is denied that the effect of the foregoing has been that traffic in the said area is left unregulated and undesirable, incomplete and partly erected street furniture has been left in places where such street furniture ought not to have been placed at all as alleged.  It is denied that the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage, including loss of amenity, as alleged.
In the alternative if no parking control system has been put in place in the Monkstown Seapoint Conservation Area and/or traffic in the said area is left unregulated and undesirable, incomplete and partly erected street furniture has been left in places, it is denied that the Defendants are responsible for same.
It is denied that the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage as alleged.
The Plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed and/or to any relief.
		By reason of the Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with the placing of street furniture pursuant to the Parking Control Byelaws 2001 without first having the plans approved by the Council they moved on the 25th of February, 2002 ex-parte to the High Court, before Mr. Justice Smith and were granted interim relief against the Defendants in the following terms
	“It is ordered that the intended Defendant be restrained until after Monday the 4th 	of March, 2002 or until further order in the meantime
1.	From placing street furniture pursuant to the Parking Control Byelaws 2001 without first having the plans approved by the Council
2.	From placing or continuing to place  or install the parking machine ticket dispenser in the Monkstown and Seapoint Conservation Area.”
	It is be noted that those orders continued in being, by consent, up to the present time.
	The substantive action was heard before me on the 13th, 14th and 18th of March, 2003.  I have had the benefit of being referred to the affidavit of Stephen Devaney sworn the 25th of February, 2002, the affidavit of Derek Jago sworn the 28th of March, 2002, the affidavit of Mr. Eamonn O’Heare sworn the 28th of March, 2002, the second affidavit of the first named Plaintiff sworn the 1st of July, 2002, the affidavit of Victor Boyhan sworn the 1st of July, 2002, the third affidavit of Eamonn O’Heare sworn the 18th of July, 2002, the affidavit of John Guckian sworn July, 2002, the third named affidavit of the first named Plaintiff sworn the 25th of October, 2002, the second affidavit of Victor Boyhan sworn the 25th of October, 2002, the second affidavit of Mr. Eamonn O’Heare sworn the 13th of June, 2002 together with all of the relevant exhibits referred to in the aforesaid affidavits.
	I have also had the benefit of lengthy written submissions furnished by both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.
	Authorities relied on by the Plaintiff:-
	Counsel for the Plaintiffs referred to the following matters:-
1.	Sections 36 and 37 Road Act, 1994.
2.	Road Traffic (Signs) Regulations 1997 (SI. No. 181 of 1997).
3.	Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council Standing Orders (September, 1996).
4.	Halsburys Laws of England, (4th Edition), Vol. 28 Para. 1326-1333.
5.	“Administrative Law in Ireland”, (3rd Edition), by Morgan & Hogan, P. 33-35.
6.	Attorney General at the relation of  McGarry v. Sligo County Council (1989) ILRM 768.
7.	County Management Act 1940. Sections 16 and 17.
8.	County Management Act, 1940, Section 31.
	Counsel for the Defendants relied on the following authorities:-
1.	Constitution of Ireland Section 28A.
2.	 Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 29(1) pp238-240
3.	Shackleton on The Law and Practice of Meetings, Ninth Edition, pp65-69.
4.	Shackleton on The Law and Practice of Meetings, Ninth Edition, pp80-88.
5.	Keogh .v. Galway, [1995] 2 ILRM 312.
6.	Grange Developments .v. Dublin County Council, [1989] IR 296.
7.	Audit (Local Authorities) Act, 1927, and In re A Decision of H.W. Magrath [1934] KB414.
8.	J.L. Denman .v. Westminster Corporation, [1906] Ch. 464.
              The real essence of the Plaintiffs’ complaint against the Defendant County Council is that they would have preferred the parking to be controlled by means of tickets to be dispensed in shops in the area rather than by the use of the pay and display machines contemplated by the Defendants Parking Control Byelaws of 2001.  It seems to me totally a matter for the elected representatives to determine what type of parking is appropriate for the area.  However, I do note that the two mature suburbs of Salthill and Monkstown have in many areas no shops available for the dispensing of tickets as suggested by the Plaintiffs.  I am also satisfied, on the evidence, that the recommendation of the Garda Síochána to the Defendants was that convenient and readily accessible outlets for the dispensing of ticket machines were vital to the success of appropriate parking controls by the Defendants.  It seems to me on the evidence that the Plaintiffs preferred parking controls would be inoperable giving the absence of retail outlets for the dispensing of tickets in very many areas of the two suburbs in question.
	On the 1st of January, 2002 the Defendants’ Parking Control Byelaws, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Byelaws”) came into operation.  These were made pursuant to Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994.
1.	Byelaw No. 3 provides that the Byelaws apply to the area comprising the administrative County of the Defendants. 
2.	 Part II Byelaws 13-17 deal with pay and display ticket parking.  A “pay and display ticket machine” is defined as “a machine capable of automatically delivering a pay and display parking ticket with the appropriate fee parking fee prescribed by these Byelaws is inserted into the machine”.
3.	Part III Byelaws 18-20 deal with disc parking.
4.	The essence of quotations challenge centres on the legal interpretation of Counsel Motion 5(3) (reference C/255/01) which states that:-
	     “no parking machine ticket dispenser would be placed in a Conservation Area    
         are placed in the immediate vicinity of a Protected Structure so as to interfere 
		      with its setting or visual appearance”.
5.	The foregoing motion was carried at a Council meeting on the 2nd of July, 2001 and an issue arises as to whether this in fact was an lawfully effective amendment of the draft Byelaws or a motion directing the manner in which the Byelaws were to be applied.
	A further meeting took place on the 14th of January, 2002 and a further Motion was put forward by Councillor Boyhan, seconded by Councillor McDowell which was carried to the following effect:-
	“That the Parking Control Byelaws 2001 dated January, 2002 as amended by 
(a)	The inclusion of the commencement date of the 1st of January, 2002, and 
(b)	The inclusion of the amendment to Byelaws passed on the 2nd of July, 2001 and
(c)	The inclusion of additional amendments as set out in paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 of the Manager’s report of the 14th of January, 2002 and
(d)	The inclusion of the additional amendment to Byelaw 28th proposed by the Manager at paragraph 4 of the said report to read
	“In any one year Council for issue 1 for parking permit President’s car to satisfactory evidence of the Applicants’ bona fide, acceptable to the County Manager or his delegated Officer has been submitted with each application”. Are hereby approved by the Council.”
	By a Motion of the 2nd of July, 2001 the first named Defendant had required 
	    “That the placing of street furniture, traffic changes including road markings be       put before the Council’s approval.”
	I accept this judgment but notwithstanding the Plaintiffs claim for damages for various  itemed  reports, this claim has been withdrawn and the issue before this Court is what the Plaintiffs can succeed in striking down the respective decision of the defence relating to the placement of “pay and display parking ticket machines” in the Monkstown and Seapoint area. 
	I am satisfied that I ought to rely on the following matters put forward by the Defendant.
1.  	 The Plaintiffs case proceeded on a misconception of what occurred on the Council meeting on the 2nd of July, 2001.  Contrary to what is alleged by the Plaintiffs, the role of the second named Defendant was limited to advising the first named Defendant  through the Cathaoirleach as to its statutory obligations.  I am satisfied that no cause of action lies against the second named Defendant arising out of the circumstances of this case.
2.  	 I am satisfied that Council Motion 5(3) C/255(01) cannot in fact or in law be construed as an amendment.   In my view any attempt to construe this Council Motion as an amendment to the draft Byelaws must fail.  It is in contradiction to the Byelaws as passed by the elected representatives of the Council.  In my view such an attempt to so interpret that Motion in the manner contended for by the Plaintiffs would result in the court holding that the motion was null and void as it constituted a contradiction of the Byelaws in question.  However, I interpret the motion as a recognition of the concerns of these Plaintiffs who have concerns about the visual amenity of their areas in question. It seems to me on, any rational understanding of the proceedings in question that this was nothing more or less than an aid to the Council officials to consider sensitively the placing of the machines in questions.
	I also accept that the Defendants have in fact placed the pay and display parking ticket machines in such a manner to ensure that no parking machine ticket dispenser is placed in a Conservation Area or placed in the immediate of a Protected Structure so as to interfere with its setting or visual appearance and thereby I hold, have complied with Council Motion 5(3) reference C/255/01).
	I also accept that the elected members of the Defendant Council retain the power to acquire by resolution any particular Act, matter or thing specifically mentioned in the resolution and which the local authority or the manager can lawfully do or effect to be done or effected in the performance of the executive functions of the local authority.
	I also accept the Defendants’ submission that the Plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy in placing a further resolution before the Council.
	In the circumstances I am satisfied that Council Motion 5(3) reference C/255/01 cannot be construed as an amendment to the draft Byelaws having regard to the legal authorities and submissions relied upon by the Defendants.  In the circumstances I hold that the Plaintiffs’ claim fails.
	The order of this Court will be to vacate the interim injunction granted as aforesaid and I will hear Counsel for both parties on the issue of costs.