The Supreme Court has reduced the costs payable by three Wicklow councillors after they instructed a failed challenge to a planning decision concerning a proposed pet crematorium at Redcross. It also restored Wicklow County Council’s liability for the planning applicant’s costs.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice O’Donnell on 30 July 2010, concerned costs arising from litigation over the councillors’ attempt to overturn a decision to grant planning permission. It did not reopen the planning decision itself.
The dispute began after Wicklow County Council received an application to convert a milking parlour into a pet crematorium. Councillors passed a resolution under section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act 1955 directing the County Manager to refuse permission. The Manager considered the resolution invalid because councillors had taken irrelevant matters into account and granted permission. The High Court later refused the councillors leave to seek judicial review, finding the resolution invalid on that basis. No appeal was brought against that decision.
Three councillors—Thomas Cullen, Patrick Doran and Nicholas Kelly—then appealed the High Court’s later costs orders. The High Court had held them liable for the County Manager’s costs and had changed an earlier order so they were also liable for the costs of the planning applicant, Andrew Byrne. The Supreme Court upheld the Manager’s entitlement to costs against the three councillors, finding the High Court was entitled to identify them as the people who had instructed the proceedings in the Council’s name.
However, the Supreme Court allowed Byrne’s appeal on costs. It held there was no basis to change the original order in his favour against Wicklow County Council, which the Court said was the source of his difficulties. The Council was to bear Byrne’s costs, with the Manager indemnified by the Council in that respect.
The Court reduced the three councillors’ liability to the Manager to costs on the basis of a two-day hearing, to be taxed if the parties could not agree. It proposed making no other order on the costs of the Supreme Court appeal, subject to submissions, apart from Byrne’s costs. The judgment noted the proceedings had delayed the planning appeal and prevented Byrne from starting the business he had sought to establish.