A Judge has refused permission for a Donegal businessman to hold car ‘diffing’ events during the Donegal Rally weekend.
Judge Simon McAleese said the risks were “too enormous to contemplate”
An application under Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act was brought against Louise Butterly (Ferry) before a special sitting of Letterkenny Circuit Court.
It follows a similar application brought last year against her father, Jim Ferry, which was mentioned during the same hearing.
However, Judge McAleese said he was not going to change his mind and allow a derogation to an undertaking previously given by Mr Ferry not to hold diffing events at his yard during the course of the Donegal Rally.
The matter relates to lands at Rossbracken, Manorcunningham owned by Jim Ferry and his daughter Louise Butterly-Ferry.
A remote hearing took place at Letterkenny courthouse after Donegal County Council moved an application and Judge McAleese said such events were “not a safe activity” and, referencing the “carnage” on Donegal’s roads he said he was not prepared to “take a chance”.
A Section 160 application refers to an application for an injunction related to unauthorised development.
Donegal County Council was represented by barrister Mr Ivan Toner BL, instructed by solicitor Mr Kevin McElhinney while barrister Ms Fionna O’Regan BL appeared for both Jim Ferry and Louise Butterly-Ferry.
An application in relation to the matter was previously heard at Monaghan Town Circuit Court and was adjourned to October.
Ms O’Regan said, in relation to the lands of Ms Butterly-Ferry, there would be “no diffing this weekend without the permission off the court”. Noting that she could “absolutely understand how it would look”, Ms O’Regan said her instructions are “very clear” and said: “Without the permission of the court, there will be no diffing”.
At the outset of the hearing, Judge McAleese said that “what we have here is a frantic effort to create, on Ms Butterly’s land, infrastructure to enable the carrying out of a diffing event?”
Mr Toner, for the local authority, said that if an undertaking was given to the court, they would not need to proceed with a section 160 application.
Mr Toner said that who was carrying out the”quite significant works” on Ms Butterly-Ferry’s land was a question of concern not only for the Council, but for the court. He said these works would allow for diffing events on the lands and told the court that Ms Butterly-Ferry “would need to follow through” in her undertaking. He told Judge McAleese that the Council has a concern that the Donegal Rally takes place this weekend.
Judge McAleese remarked that this is a situation that is back before him once again; “the latest of many iterations that I have dealt with”.
He asked if Ms Butterly-Ferry would give an undertaking to preserve the status quo, pending consideration of the arguments over the application and the “frailties” suggested in relation to it.
He said if Mr Toner was agreeable for Ms Butterly-Ferry to give an undertaking that there won’t be any diffing on her lands, pending any decision to the contrary, then he would adjourn the case until October when Ms O’Regan could address him on the alleged frailties of the application.
Mr Toner said he was “entirely agreeable” to that.
Judge McAleese said that if an undertaking was given or inferred such that he deemed it given and it was not complied with then “the consequences for her would be dire”. Ms O’Regan said that both of her clients are “very clear” in respect of the matter.
Mr Patrick Sweeney, solicitor, appeared remotely in the company of Ms Butterly-Ferry. He said that his client has confirmed that she is willing to give her undertaking in the terms sought and Judge McAleese adjourned the motion to October.
In relation to the case of Mr Jim Ferry, Judge McAleese said that there appeared to be an attempt to “try to convince me, last minute dot com, to change my mind in relation to a derogation from the undertaking given by Mr Ferry not to hold diffing events at his years during the course of the Donegal Rally.
Ms O’Regan said that Mr Ferry “lives in hope”, but said that her client would not run the event without the permission from the court.
Ms O’Regan said that while previously submitted affidavits were “not especially persuasive”, the focus at that time was on the alleged exempted development.
She said that an issue over a statute barred point wasn’t fully dealt with. Ms O’Regan sought liberty to admit two other affidavits.
Ms O’Regan told the court that Mr Ferry explained in an affidavit that he developed a waste facility and when a concrete slab was put down in 2006, some of his staff began diffing in the evenings. They started bringing friends from outside and from 2006-09 diffing was run in a casual fashion before more organised events began.
An employee of Mr Ferry’s had an idea to organise events and they “kept getting bigger,” the court was informed. Safety precautions were brought in and the events got bigger.
Ms O’Regan said it would be in the interest of justice to allow the additional affidavits so the court could make a determination.
“It would be an injustice to refuse it.” Ms O’Regan said, adding that this should have been done the first time around, but it wasn’t.
Mr Toner said that the basis on which the Council was objecting was that Mr Ferry wanted a further derogation to allow him host a diffing event this weekend.
The Council’s barrister said that there was an acceptance of the undertaking, but that it had to include the Donegal Rally weekend.
Ms O’Regan said that Mr Ferry “still has hopes for this weekend”. He said that materials in affidavits may persuade the court to consider lifting it for the weekend.
Ms O’Regan said it seemed that there was sufficient material before the court and added: “I believe that he has a persuasive case”.
Judge McAleese said that he put his “neck on the block” previously on the basis of an undertaking being given to the court.
“It was a firm undertaking and it was reiterated to the court and I was assured that there would be compliance with the undertaking,” Judge McAleese said.
The Judge said that the undertaking was withdrawn unilaterally in circumstances that he found to be “remarkably unsatisfactory”.
Judge McAleese said he was not prepared to take another chance after Mr Ferry “frankly dishonoured” a promise made.
“It would be folly of me,” he said, adding that it could be a case of “once bitten, twice shy”.
He said he was not prepared to agree to a derogation to the undertaking. While the undertaking has been withdrawn, Judge McAleese said he did not accept its withdrawal.
Judge McAleese noted that it was indicated by Ms O’Regan that, unless the court gave permission, there would not be any diffing on the land.
The Judge said Mr Ferry could make a case that the event would be safe and there would be plenty of marshals and “that probably is the case”.
“The risks are too enormous to contemplate,” Judge McAleese said. “We have seen carnage on the roads amongst young people in County Donegal. All it takes is for something to go wrong and we have some truly, potentially horrible consequences in circumstances where these activities would take place in the teeth of the Council’s objections.
“I, quite frankly, am not prepared to take another chance on everything going well and nobody getting injured. It is counter-intuitive, young men and in some cases young women driving fast cars in a confined space in an acrobatic fashion.”
Judge McAleese said this is “not a safe activity” and is an activity that “needs to be regulated”.
The Judge said that he heard an argument about the danger of young people undertaking such activities on a public road, but added: “I can’t sort of work on the basis that I need to prevent illegality elsewhere by facilitating Mr Ferry in an activity which the Council contends is outside of the planning process and is an unauthorised development. I am sorry but my answer is no.”
Mr Toner asked that the issue of costs in the case of Jim Ferry be reserved until October.
Judge McAleese gave Ms O’Regan four weeks to deliver such additional affidavits that she says are necessary to content a point regarding statutes of limitations and gave Mr Toner until the end of the first week in September to reply.
Businessman Jim Ferry refused permission to hold ‘diffing’ event this weekend was last modified: June 19th, 2025 by
Tags:
