Barlow v The Minister for Communications
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Meenan |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 417 |
| Date | 31 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | [2006 No. 2687 P.] |
[2019] IEHC 417
THE HIGH COURT
Meenan J.
[2006 No. 2687 P.]
AND
AND
Costs – Public importance – Hardship – Defendants seeking costs – Whether the proceedings were proceedings of public importance
Facts: The High Court (Meenan J), on 22 March 2019, dismissed the action of the plaintiffs, Mr Barlow, Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd, Mr Crowley, Riverbank Mussels Ltd, Mr Kelly, Fresco Seafoods Ltd, Tardrum Fisheries Ltd, Mr McCarthy and Halcome Merchants (Ireland) Ltd trading as Alex McCarthy Shellfish, against the defendants, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Registrar General of Fishing Boats, Ireland and the Attorney General. The remaining issue before the Court was costs. The defendants referred to the fact that the Court had found against the plaintiffs on all five issues on foot of which the plaintiffs made their claim. They submitted, therefore, that the Court should apply the standard rule in relation to costs, namely that “costs follow the event”, as per O. 99, r. 1(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The defendants further submitted that there were no circumstances in this case to justify the Court departing from this rule. The plaintiffs submitted to the Court that it ought to either award the plaintiffs their costs, full or partial, or make no order as to costs. In the alternative, the plaintiffs sought that the Court only award the defendants a portion of their costs. The grounds for this application were: (i) the proceedings are proceedings of public importance; (ii) the defendants’ conduct of the proceedings added to the costs; (iii) a costs order against the plaintiffs would cause hardship.
Held by Meenan J that, though a period of some twelve years had elapsed between the initiation of the proceedings and the trial of the action, he was not going to apportion blame. Though he did accept that an order for costs against the plaintiffs could result in hardship, he held that there was insufficient evidence of such as to displace the standard rule of costs following the event. The proceedings were, in his view, a “proportionate reaction” to the unlawful situation created by the State. However, he found that, unlike Kerins v McGuinness & Ors [2017] IEHC 217, the action did not involve constitutional issues or issues of special and general public importance and further were taken for commercial gain.
Meenan J held that, in light of the foregoing, he would award the unsuccessful plaintiffs 25% of their taxed costs (or agreed costs) against the defendants and 100% of the costs of the transcripts of the hearing before the Court. As for the reserved costs, he would make no order for costs concerning application(s) brought by the plaintiffs to amend the statement of claim, first issued on 10 July 2006. As for the costs of the motion for discovery, issued in 2010 and reserved by the High Court (Fenney J) on 23 July 2011, he would award the plaintiffs 25% of those costs when taxed, if not agreed.
Costs awarded.
On 22 March 2019 I delivered judgment in this action wherein I dismissed the plaintiffs” action against the defendants and this judgment should be read in conjunction with that earlier judgment. At the conclusion of the judgment, I stated: -
‘75. As is clear from the foregoing, I have rejected the various claims made by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial