Zalewski v Adjudication Officer (Glackin) and Others
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice Meenan |
Judgment Date | 13 March 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 156 |
Docket Number | [2017 No. 146 J.R.] |
Court | High Court |
Date | 13 March 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 156
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Meenan J.
[2017 No. 146 J.R.]
AND
Practice & Procedure – O. 99, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Consent to payment of applicant's costs – Lack of creditability – Costs order in part.
Facts: The applicant sought the costs of the entire proceedings. The respondents consented to an order for costs in favour of the applicant up to the date on which a relevant letter was issued. The respondents contended that the decision of the first respondent was 'an administrative error'.
Mr. Justice Meenan granted an order for costs in part in favour of the applicant. The Court granted the costs of the proceedings up to the date on which the letter was issued by the respondents. The Court held that the explanation given by the respondents for the decision of the first respondent lacked credibility and was unacceptable. The Court found that the applicant did not have locus standi to maintain a constitutional challenge to the relevant legislation. The Court noted that there was consent to an order of certiorari for quashing the decision and for the payment of the applicant's costs up to the date of the letter. The Court also referred to the principles set out in the case of Collins v. The Minister for Finance and Other [2014] IEHC 79 to the effect that the Court had discretion to award costs to the unsuccessful party, in the special circumstances of a case.
On 8th February, 2018 I delivered judgment in this matter. The respondents by letter dated 4th April, 2017 conceded that the applicant was entitled to an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first named respondent dated 16th December, 2016. This letter also consented to an order for the costs of the proceedings up to the date of the said letter.
The issue to be determined by this Court was whether the applicant had locus standi to maintain a constitutional challenge to the relevant legislation. I found that the applicant did not have locus standi and thus was precluded from continuing his constitutional challenge.
The explanation given by the respondents for the decision of 16th December, 2016 was that it was 'an administrative error'. In my view, this explanation lacked creditability and given the importance of the decision for those involved made the explanation for the decision unacceptable.
The issue now before this Court is the determination of costs. The respondents, though successful in the motion, have informed the court that they are not seeking an order for costs against the applicant and consent to an order for costs in favour of the applicant up until the 4th April, 2017, the date of the said letter. The applicant seeks the costs of the entire proceedings.
O. 99 r. 1(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides:-
'(1) The costs of and incidental to every proceeding in the Superior Courts shall be in the discretion of those Courts respectively.'
O. 99 r. 1(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides:-
'(4) The costs of every issue of fact or law raised upon a claim or counterclaim shall, unless otherwise ordered, follow the event.'
The 'event' in the proceedings before this Court was that the applicant is now precluded from maintaining his constitutional challenge to the legislation in question. Thus, applying the general rule, the respondents would be entitled to their costs.
However, as is clear from the said order, the court has a discretion which may be exercised to make a costs order in favour of a losing party. The court has been referred to a number of authorities as to how it should exercise this discretion.
The matter was considered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others; Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others
...1 I.R. 336. 700 Case C-50/09 Commission v Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2011:109. 701 Sweetman v Environmental Protection Agency & Nurendale Ltd [2018] IEHC 156. 702 Recital (21**), Article 1(2)(g)(v), Article 703 The plural is deliberate as more than one authorisation may combine to constitute the dev......
-
Peter Sweetman v an Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General
...Sweetman IX Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2016 No. 715 JR] [2017] IEHC 46 [2017] IEHC 133 Sweetman X Sweetman v. EPA [2016 No. 824 JR] [2018] IEHC 156 Sweetman XI Sweetman v. EPA [2017 No. 664 JR] [2019] IEHC 81 Sweetman XII Sweetman v. Clare County Council [2018 No. 178 JR] [2018] IEHC 517......
-
Zalewski v Adjudication Officer
...made on 13 March 2018, for the reasons set out in two written judgments delivered on 8 February 2018 ([2018] IEHC 59) and 13 March 2018 ([2018] IEHC 156). The first judgment determined the locus standi issue and the second related only to costs. This appeal concerned the requisite locus sta......
-
Zalewski v Adjudication Officer
...March, 2018 for the reasons set out in two written judgments delivered on the 8th February, 2018: [2018] IEHC 59 and 13th March, 2018: [2018] IEHC 156. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty Third Amendment......