Kavanagh v Government of Ireland and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTH
Judgment Date21 November 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] IEHC 389
CourtHigh Court
Date21 November 2007

[2007] IEHC 389

THE HIGH COURT

1269/2007
Kavanagh v Government of Ireland & Ors
DUBLIN
MICHAEL KAVANAGH
Plaintiff
-AND-
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND CHILDREN, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants

GRIMES v PUNCHESTOWN DEVELOPMENTS CO LTD & MCD PROMOTIONS LTD 2002 4 IR 515

VEOLIA WATER UK PLC v FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL UNREP CLARKE 22.6.2006 2006 IEHC 240

EEC DIR 2003/35

EEC DIR 85/337 ART 10(a)

DUNNE v MIN ENVIRONMENT & ORS UNREP LAFFOY 18.3.2005 2005 IEHC 79

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

Costs

Follow event - Discretion - Public interest - Access to justice - Prohibitively expensive - Whether plaintiff having private interest - Whether issues of general public importance - Whether legal costs of unsuccessful litigant prohibitively expensive - Grimes v Punchestown Developments Co Ltd [2002] 4 IR 515 and Veolia Water UK plc v Fingal Co Co [2006] IEHC 240, [2007] 2 IR 81 followed; Dunne v Minister for Environment [2005] IEHC 79, (Unrep, Laffoy J, 18/3/2005) distinguished - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/35/EEC - Costs awarded against unsuccessful plaintiff (2007/1269P - Smyth J - 21/11/2007) [2007] IEHC 389

Kavanagh v Ireland

1

APPROVED JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY MR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTHON WEDNESDAY, 21TH NOVEMBER 2007

2

I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes of the evidence in the above-named matter.

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant:

MR. N. TRAVERS BL

Instructed by:

JAMES B. JOYCE & 9 CO. CLIFDEN CO. GALWAY

For the Respondent:

MR. J. CONNOLLY SC

Instructed by:

MS. PAMELA BENSON CHIEF STATE SOLICITORS ORMOND HOUSE LITTLE SHIP STREET DUBLIN 8

3

COPYRIGHT: Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to any other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Services

4

JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY MR. JUSTICE T.C. SMYTHON WEDNESDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER 2007

5

MR. JUSTICE SMYTH: Judgment in this case was delivered on 31st July 2007. The Plaintiff was not successful in the action in the High Court and has lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court.

6

The issue of costs was agreed to be taken separately and a separate court order made referable thereto. I have had the benefit of lengthy legal submissions (supported by books of authorities) from both parties. I am reluctant to burden all who may be concerned on appeal with a lengthy or exhaustive ruling on costs.

7

In Grimes -v- Punchestown Developments Co. Ltd. [2002] 4 I.R 515 at page 552 the Supreme Court expressed itself by describing Order 99 Rule 1 as the "normal rule", ie that costs follow the event, unless the Court, for special reasons, otherwise directs. More recently Clarke J. noted in Veolia water U.K. plc -v- Fingal County Council [2006] 1. EH 240 that:

"The overriding starting position should remain that costs should follow the event."

8

The matter was put very specifically at paragraph [25] of the judgment thus:

"Parties who are required to bring a case to Court in order to secure their rights are, prima facie, entitled to the reasonable costs of maintaining the proceedings. Parties who successfully defend proceedings are, again prime facie, entitled to the costs to which they have been put in defending what at the end of the day the Court has found to be unmeritorious proceedings."

9

Notwithstanding the several grounds upon which the Plaintiff was unsuccessful in the action he invoked Council Directive 2003/35/EEC to resist the application for costs by the successful Defendant (not withstanding that no declaratory relief in respect of the Directive was sought in the proceedings). Further it was sought to argue on the Plaintiff's behalf an entitlement to his costs on the ground of altruism and a non pecuniary interest in the outcome of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Kavanagh v Ireland and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 Noviembre 2007
    ...THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND CHILDREN, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Defendants [2007] IEHC 389 1269/2007 THE HIGH COURT PRACTICE & PROCEDURE Costs Follow event - Discretion - Public interest - Access to justice - Prohibitively expensive ......
  • M.D. v N.D.
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 23 Julio 2015
    ...are now cited in so many applications for costs and have been relied upon in so many prominent cases (e.g. Kavanagh v. Ireland & Ors [2007] IEHC 389 (Smyth J.), Mennolly Homes Ltd. v. Appeal Commissioners [2010] IEHC 56 (Charleton J.), and McAleenan v. AIG (Europe) Ltd. [2010] IEHC 279 (Fin......
  • ACC Bank Plc v Johnston (t/a Brian Johnston & Company Solicitors) and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 Octubre 2011
    ...2 IR 81; Mennolly Homes Ltd v Appeal Commissioners [2010] IEHC 56, (Unrep, Charleton J, 9/3/2010); Kavanagh v Government of Ireland [2007] IEHC 389, (Unrep, Smyth J, 21/11/2007); McAleenan v AIG (Europe) Ltd [2010] IEHC 279, (Unrep, Finlay Geoghegan J, 16/7/2010) and Calderbank v Calderbank......
  • Road Sense An Incorporated Association+william Walton, Chairman Of Road Sense, As Its Representative And As An Individual. V. Against A Decision Of Scottish Ministers
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 20 Enero 2011
    ...Report of the Working Group chaired by Lord Justice Sullivan (May 2008), 11, § 20, notes 20 and 22; see also Kavanagh v MJELR & Ors [2007] IEHC 389.] The matter may be revisited in the litigation possibly on course for the European Court of Justice [infra.] [10] Subject to the above-mention......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Costs Principles Reaffirmed
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 21 Septiembre 2012
    ...(No 2) [2007] 2 IR 81 (Judge Clarke); Mennolly Homes Ltd v Appeal Commissions [2010] IEHC 56 (Judge Charleton); Kavanagh v Ireland [2007] IEHC 389 (Judge Smyth); and McAleenan v AIG (Europe) Ltd [2010] IEHC 279 (Judge Finlay The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT