The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal over the costs awarded after the unauthorised demolition of a building at 25 Dublin Street, Carlow, affirming the High Court’s order.
The appeal was confined at its outset to costs. Slaneygio Limited and Joseph Germaine had challenged the High Court’s decision to award some costs on the High Court scale, arguing that section 17 of the Courts Act 1981 capped recovery at Circuit Court costs because the proceedings could have been brought there.
The proceedings began on 1 November 2016, after demolition of the entire building started during the Halloween bank holiday weekend. Elaine Morgan sought relief under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Carlow County Council later joined as a co-applicant in its role as planning authority.
In May 2017, the High Court held that the demolition was not exempted development and was therefore unauthorised. The appellants ultimately accepted that an order under section 160 was appropriate. On 7 July 2017, the High Court made a detailed order requiring reconstruction, including preparation of drawings and specifications by the appellants’ conservation architect.
The High Court divided the costs by stage. It awarded High Court scale costs for the urgent initial hearings, the written legal submissions and a June 2017 hearing at which Germaine was cross-examined. The remaining proceedings were generally assessed on the Circuit Court scale. The appellants also challenged the refusal to make a differential costs order under section 17(5).
The Court of Appeal held that sections 160 and 161 of the planning legislation supplied a self-contained costs regime for these applications. Section 160 allows the court to set costs terms it considers appropriate, subject to section 161, which requires the court, absent special and substantial reasons, to order a person subject to a section 160 order to pay costs and expenses measured by the court. The court concluded that this later regime displaced the general restriction in section 17 of the 1981 Act for section 160 applications.
It found no basis to interfere with the High Court judge’s considered exercise of discretion, including the allocation of costs by stage. The differential costs appeal also failed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It did not alter the underlying reconstruction order.