The operators of the Ann Summers shop in O'Connell Street, Dublin, yesterday secured leave to take a High Court challenge to a Dublin Corporation notice directing them to stop using the premises as a shop.
Mr Justice O Caoimh gave leave to three companies in the Ann Summers group to seek an order to quash the notice of the corporation, dated October 1st last. A date for the full hearing of the judicial review proceedings will be set later.
An appeal based on planning grounds against the corporation's decision has been lodged already with An Bord Pleanala. The shop may remain in business pending the outcome of the appeal procedures.
The High Court challenge has been taken by Ann Summers Ireland (Retail) Ltd, Ann Summers (Ireland) Ltd and Ann Summers Ltd. The disputed corporation notice said continuance of the use of the premises by Ann Summers was inappropriate and unsuitable to the main street of Dublin city and contrary to the proper planning and development of the street.
The use of the premises for the display and sale of the Ann Summers range of products was unacceptable and in conflict with the objectives of the O'Connell Street Integrated Area Plan, the notice also stated.
The companies say the corporation's decision was issued on the day that the shop began trading, and was made prior to any inspection of the premises.
They claim the corporation could not have given any adequate consideration to the effects which the use of the premises was having on the planning and development of the area.
It is also claimed that the corporation, in deciding that the use of the premises as a shop should be discontinued, did not restrict itself to considering planning and development and instead took into account irrelevant matters.
In particular, the companies claim the corporation took into account the use of the premises for the display and sale of the Ann Summers range of products. The purpose for which the premises is used is not a planning and development consideration, they contend.
The Summers companies also claim that the corporation's notice referring to "the nature of the goods displayed in the premises" is not a material consideration.
No reasons were given, nor was there any evidence of the basis on which the corporation could reasonably have concluded that the external appearance of the premises was contrary to proper planning and development of the area, they argue.