Usk and District Residents Association Ltd v Environmental Protection Agency

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 13 October 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] IEHC 296
• Docket Number: [2004 No. 694 JR &
• Court: High Court
• Date: 13 October 2006

[2006] IEHC 296

THE HIGH COURT

No. 694 J.R./2004

No. 32 COM/2004

Usk and District Residents Association Ltd v Environmental Protection Agency

Issue desk 2

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN/

USK AND DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

AND

GREENSTAR RECYCLING HOLDINGS LIMITED

NOTICE PARTY

Abstract:

Judicial review - Costs - Commercial law - Whether the applicant was entitled to an order in its favour of the costs of the application for leave.

The applicant was granted leave to apply by way of judicial review for an order of certiorari of a decision of the respondent to grant a waste licence to the notice party. Subsequently, the proceedings were admitted to the commercial list by order of the High Court. In these proceedings the applicant sought pursuant to Order 63A, rule 30 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, an order in its favour of the costs of the application for leave.

Held by Finlay Geoghegan J. in refusing the applicant's application for an order for the costs of the leave application:

1. That an application for leave in a statutory scheme was not an interlocutory application envisaged by O.63A, r.30 and consequently the application ought to be considered independently of O.63A, r.30.

2. That having regard to the fact that the applicant was only granted leave on a limited number of grounds out of the extensive grounds advanced, it was not unreasonable for the respondent and notice party to have opposed the application and consequently the applicant was not entitled to an order for its costs of the leave application irrespective of the outcome of the full judicial review proceedings.

Reporter: L.O'S.

1 Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegandelivered 13th day of October, 2006.

2 In a written judgment delivered on 28 ^th July, 2006, I granted leave to the applicants to seek by way of judicial review an order of certiorari of a decision of the respondent to grant a waste licence to the notice party. I granted leave on the grounds set out at E(9) (as amended) and (12) of the statement of grounds.

3 This ruling is on the applications in relation to the costs of the leave application.

4 In the statement of grounds as delivered and filed the applicant sought leave on fourteen grounds. Not all were pursued at the hearing of the application for leave. However, in addition to the grounds upon which leave was granted there were anumber of other grounds pursued and refused which for the purposes of my judgment I grouped under two headings.

5 These proceedings were admitted to the commercial list by order of the High Court of 12 ^th November, 2004, upon the application of the notice party and without objection of the other parties.

6 The applicant now seeks an order in its favour of the costs of the application for leave. It relies upon O. 63A, r. 30 of the Superior Court Rules in relation to commercial proceedings to have the costs determined. The application is primarily based upon the refusal of both the respondent and notice party to take up the suggestions of Kelly J. at the hearing on the entry to the commercial list or me at the commencement of the leave application that the application for leave be treated, if the judge hearing it formed the view that substantial grounds existed, also as the full application for judicial review. On each occasion both the respondent and notice party refused, as they are entitled to do in the statutory scheme, to agree to such a procedure. Counsel for the applicant submits that by reason of such refusal and the respondent and notice party's insistence that there be a separate hearing of the application for leave that regardless of the outcome of the full hearing of the application for judicial review it should be entitled to its costs of the resisted application for leave in which it has been successful.

7 The respondent and notice party both submit that the applicant is not entitled to an order for costs in its favour but take slightly different positions on the appropriate approach of the court and the order to be made. The primary position of the respondent is that the costs of the leave application should be made costs in the cause or, in the alternative that the court should reserve the costs to the judge hearing the full application for judicial...