Meath County Council has claimed that the record judgment of just over €4m against the local authority will not impact on its ability to deliver services.
Last week the council had been ordered by the Commercial Court to pay back a development company, Darlington Properties, the money they had paid for a site in Ashbourne.
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Peter Kelly, accused the council of bungling and ineptitude of the highest order.
Now Meath County Manager Tom Dowling has 'acknowledged and regretted that mistakes had led to this case being taken.'
The case had arisen after the company had paid €4.51m to the council for a parcel of land in Ashbourne with the promise that a link road would be built to connect the site onto a main road.
However, the council had already granted planning permission for another development on that land so the link road could not be constructed.
That meant Darlington Properties could not develop the site as they had intended.
Following a briefing to councillors, Mr Dowling has confirmed in a statement that the local authority is to appeal the Commercial Court's decision to the Supreme Court.
The council will accept Mr Justice Kelly's ruling but argue that the award for damages is too high.
When Meath County Council was granted this appeal a condition was that they pay over €2.2m to Darlington Properties.
The Supreme Court appeal will be told by the council that this is the correct figure and they should not have to pay over the remainder of the award.
Mr Dowling also said that the €4.51m which had been paid to the council had 'not been spent and was still available.'
He also said the local authority made financial provisions every year for legal cases. On that basis, he said the judgment will not affect the council's ability to deliver services.
Meanwhile, County Manager Tom Dowling may be forced to answer questions and reveal internal council documents about the controversial Darlington Properties case after a motion was put down today by a councillor.
Cllr Brian Fitzpatrick, an independent member of the local authority, has said because of the refusal of the manager to answer questions in relation to the case, he had put down a motion under Section 136 of the Local Government Act seeking all the information held by Mr Dowling, including legal documents.
That section of the Act forces a manager to give the councillors all information about a particular issue.
Cllr Fitzpatrick said that given the 'serious damage that has been done to the reputation of the council, its planning section and elected members' it was of paramount importance to know what legal advise was given to the management team and who decided what action to take.
The motion is likely to be discussed at next month's meeting of the council.
