McHugh v The Minister for Environment Heritage and Local Government and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Hyland
• Judgment Date: 07 April 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 81
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Record Number: 2024/167

Between/

Harry McHugh

Appellant/Plaintiff

and

Minister for the Enviroment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents/Defendants

[2025] IECA 81

Butler J.

Hyland J.

Collins J.

Record Number: 2024/167

High Court Record Number: 2008/7621P

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Costs – Strike out – Legal representation – Appellant seeking costs – Whether, because the appellant had had solicitors on record from the date of the issuance of the motion until the date when his solicitors came off record, he should obtain an order for 80% of his costs during that period

Facts: The Court of Appeal (Hyland J), on 11 March 2025, delivered a judgment whereby she allowed the appeal of the appellant, Mr McHugh, against the decision of the High Court to strike out the proceedings under Order 19, Rule 28 of the RSC and/or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court, while upholding that part of the decision striking out the appellant’s claim that his lands had been unlawfully compulsorily acquired. An indicative costs order was identified, subject to any submissions that the parties might have wished to make. Hyland J proposed that the appellant be entitled to 80% of his expenses of defending the motion in the High Court and of bringing the appeal, in circumstances where he was not represented. The appellant submitted both in writing, and orally at a hearing on 28 March 2025 that, because he had had solicitors on record from the date of the issuance of the motion on 3 March 2023 until 13 December 2023, when his solicitors came off record, he should obtain an order for 80% of his costs during that period.

Held by Hyland J that normally that would be the appropriate order but there was one unsatisfactory aspect of his representation during that time period. She noted that the three affidavits filed by the appellant between 3 March and 13 December i.e. the affidavit of 24 March 2023, the affidavit of 16 June 2023 and the affidavit of 21 September 2023, were drafted by the appellant himself, apparently due to the unavailability of his solicitor and counsel during that period, although it appeared that his solicitor and various counsel were retained to deal with various appearances before the court in respect of adjournments, mediation and related matters. Hyland J was quite satisfied that the appellant’s legal team would not bill for work they did not carry out, and if there was any dispute in that respect, the costs adjudication process would ensure that costs were only recoverable for work vouched in the usual way. She found that it was nevertheless undesirable that a solicitor should be on record for a litigant but provide only a partial service in relation to that litigation. She noted that the affidavits were drafted by the appellant without the involvement of solicitors and counsel, with all the negative consequences that entailed for himself, for the opposing party and for the court, in circumstances where he had a legal team on record.

Hyland J held that, to mark the Court of Appeal’s concerns about the approach on the part of the appellant and his legal team, it was proposed...