Dominic Dunne, Plaintiff v The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Miss Justice Laffoy
• Judgment Date: 18 March 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] IEHC 79
• Docket Number: [Record No 2004/18593P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 18 March 2005

[2005] IEHC 79

THE HIGH COURT

[Record No 2004/18593P]

Dunne -v- Minister for Environment Heritage & Local Government

BETWEEN

DOMINIC DUNNE

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL

DEFENDANTS

Abstract:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Whether the circumstances warranted a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful in proceedings in which he claimed that s.8 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 2004 was unconstitutional and invalid having regard to certain provisions of European Law. However, the plaintiff applied for his costs of the proceedings against all of the defendants. The defendants applied for their costs against the plaintiff.

Held by Laffoy J. in favour of the plaintiff: That notwithstanding the fact that the outcome of the proceedings turned almost entirely on questions of law, all of which were determined in favour of the defendants, there were special circumstances which warranted a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The plaintiff did not have a private interest in the outcome of the proceedings. The proceedings raised public law issues, which were of general importance and accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to an award of costs against all of the defendants.

Reporter: L.O’S.

JUDGMENT of

Miss Justice Laffoy

delivered on the 18th day of March, 2005

1 On 7th September, 2004 I delivered a judgment on the substantive issues in this case - whether s. 8 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 2004 (the Act of 2004) was invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution and certain provisions of European Law. I found against the plaintiff on all the issues raised. An appeal to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff against that decision is currently pending.

2 This judgment is concerned with the following applications:

3 (a) an application by the unsuccessful plaintiff for his costs of the proceedings in this court against all of the defendants; and

4 (b) an application by the defendants for their costs against the plaintiff, which it was contended should be acceded to on the basis that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should be applied.

5 I have had the benefit of written submissions on behalf of the plaintiff and oral submissions on behalf of all of the parties.

6 In reliance on a number of recent authorities, primarily, the judgment of this court (Quirke J.) delivered on 24th January, 2003 inMcEvoy v. Meath County Council [2003] 1 I.R. 208 and the judgment of this court (Kelly J.) delivered on 31st March, 2004 in Sinnott v. Martin [2004] 1 I.R. 121, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the exercise of this court's discretion to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event is governed by two principles:

7 (1) that the plaintiff was acting in the public interest in a matter which involved no private personal advantage; and

8 (2) that the issues raised by the proceedings are of sufficient general public importance to warrant an order for costs being made in his favour.

9 McEvoy v. Meath County Council involved a challenge by way of judicial review to the making and adopting of a development plan for County Meath, the first applicant being an elected member of Kildare County Council and the second applicant being the chairman of An Taisce (the National Trust for Ireland). The challenge was unsuccessful. In considering the applicants' application for an order for costs against the respondent, Quirke J. considered a number of authorities, one of which was a decision of the English High Court in R. v. Lord Chancellor, ex parte Child Poverty Action Group [1999] 1 W.L.R. 347 which concerned the jurisdiction of the English High Court to make a pre-emptive costs order. Quirke J., having noted that Dyson J. acknowledged that there was a distinction to be made between ordinary private law litigation, on the one hand, and what he called "public interest challenges" on the other hand, quoted the following passage from the judgment of Dyson J. at

10 p. 353 in which he explained his understanding of the concept of a public interest challenge:

...