Meath County Council v Rooney and Irish Helicopters Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Dunne |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] IEHC 564 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 21 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | [No. 51 MCA 2007] |
[2009] IEHC 564
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S160
COURTS ACT 1981 S17
COURTS ACT 1991 S14
KELLY v MIN FOR DEFENCE & AG UNREP DUNNE 8.7.2008 2008/32/7108 2008 IEHC 223
COURTS ACT 1981 S17(1)
COURTS ACT 1981 S17(3)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Costs
Planning and development - Injunction - Unauthorised development - Compromise of proceedings - Issue of costs - Contention that proceedings appropriate for Circuit Court - Absence of evidence as to rateable valuation of lands - Absence of application to remit proceedings - Kelly v Minister for Defence [2008] IEHC 223, (Unrep, Dunne J, 8/7/2008) considered - Planning and Development Act 2000 (No 3), s 60 - Courts Act 1981 (No 11), s 17 - Inquiry as to rateable valuation directed (2007/51MCA - Dunne J - 21/12/2009) [2009] IEHC 564
County Council of County of Meath v Rooney
Facts the applicant had commenced proceedings seeking a "planning injunction" pursuant to section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The proceedings were compromised on the basis, inter alia, that the respondent would be entitled to his costs as against the applicant. However, the applicant disputed that the respondent was entitled to High Court level of costs on the basis that the High Court had not been the lowest court having jurisdiction in the matter. The applicant contended that it was entitled to costs at the High Court scale given that, inter alia, there had been no evidence of the rateable valuation of the property in issue.
Held by Ms. Justice Dunne in adjourning the matter to allow an inquiry into the rateable valuation of the property in issue that, given that there had been no evidence before the court on the particular issue, it was appropriate to make an inquiry into the rateable valuation of the lands and premises at issue in the proceedings. If it followed, as a result of that inquiry, that the Circuit Court would have had jurisdiction an order for Circuit Court costs should be made.
Reporter: P.C.
The applicant in these proceedings sought an order pursuant to the provisions of s. 160 of the Planning and Development Act2000, restraining the respondents and each of them, their respective or agents, licensees, or any person acting in consort with them … from carrying out any unauthorised development at lands at Trevet, Dunshaughlin in the Co. of Meath being the property comprised in Folio MH 35369F of the Register of Freeholders, Co. Meath. The matter came before me for hearing and following discussions between the parties I was informed that the proceedings had been compromised. One issue remained to be disposed of and that was the issue of costs of the proceedings. It was not contested that the applicant was entitled to an order for costs of the proceedings but it was contended on behalf of the first named respondent that the applicant was entitled to costs on the Circuit Court scale as these were proceedings that could have been commenced in the Circuit Court.
Counsel on behalf of the applicant argued that the applicant was entitled to costs on the High Court scale in circumstances where there was no evidence of any kind whatsoever before the court as to the rateable valuation of the lands comprised in the proceedings. On that basis it was contended that in the absence of such evidence the appropriate order to make was an order for costs appropriate to High Court proceedings.
It is correct to say that there is no evidence on affidavit in this case or otherwise as to the rateable valuation of the property comprised in Folio MH 35369F. I think it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Condron v Galway Holding Company Ltd and Danmar Construction Ltd and Stephen Treacy and Maureen Treacy
...will be a neutral factor and, as Whelan J suggests, that appears to have been the view taken by Dunne J in Meath County Council v Rooney [2009] IEHC 564. But even if that is so, the fact is that it was at all times open to the Defendants here to assert that the Circuit Court was the appropr......
-
Morgan v Slaneygio
...Court as it had jurisdiction to make the orders sought. They relied upon the decision of Dunne J. in Meath County Council v. Rooney [2009] IEHC 564 where it was held that the provisions of s.17 are mandatory in effect and that where a case is one in which the Circuit Court would have juris......