The High Court ordered Cork County Council to pay Tesco Ireland Limited’s costs of a planning judicial review, including reserved costs and the costs of the costs application. The costs are to be taxed and ascertained if the parties cannot agree them.
In a written decision given on 11 December 2013, Mr Justice Michael Peart explained a costs ruling he had already made orally after hearing submissions. Tesco had succeeded in obtaining relief on one ground: that the council’s elected members had acted ultra vires, contrary to section 20(3)(q) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The court had not decided Tesco’s other grounds because it was unnecessary to do so after it found in the company’s favour on the ultra vires ground. The judge said those grounds could not fairly be treated as unsuccessful. He also found they had not materially added to the length of the proceedings or the documentation generated.
The proceedings were subject to section 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. The general rule under that provision is that each party bears its own costs. But section 50B(2A) allows the court to award costs to an applicant to the extent it obtains relief and to the extent a respondent’s or notice party’s actions or omissions contributed to that relief.
The judge said the provision gives the court discretion to award all or part of an applicant’s costs, taking account of the extent of success and the contribution of the respondent or notice party. He considered that Tesco should be regarded as having fully succeeded in the proceedings and found no basis to reduce its costs for the other grounds.
In this case, he attributed the relief to the ultra vires decision of the council’s elected members. He therefore ordered that Tesco recover its costs from the first-named respondent, with no deduction or discount. The decision concerned costs; it did not determine the grounds on which the court had reached no conclusion.