The High Court awarded the plaintiffs 25% of their taxed or agreed costs after dismissing their action against the State, while also ordering full costs for hearing transcripts and making separate decisions on reserved costs.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered the costs judgment on 31 May 2019. The court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ action in an earlier judgment delivered on 22 March 2019. The only issue before it in this judgment was costs.
The defendants argued that the usual rule applied: costs should follow the event because the plaintiffs had lost on all five issues. The plaintiffs sought full or partial costs, no order for costs, or an order limiting the defendants to part of their costs. They argued the proceedings were of public importance, the defendants’ conduct had increased costs, and an adverse costs order could cause hardship.
The judge rejected the arguments about the defendants’ conduct and hardship as grounds to depart from the usual rule. The proceedings had begun in 2006 and undergone multiple amendments; the judge declined to apportion blame for the time taken. He accepted that an order against the plaintiffs could cause hardship, but found insufficient evidence to displace the usual costs rule.
The judge distinguished cases involving constitutional challenges brought without personal advantage. This action concerned commercial losses and applied established legal principles. However, he considered it a proportionate response to the unlawful situation created by the State. The Supreme Court had found that the State permitted vessels registered in Northern Ireland to fish unlawfully for mussel seed in Irish territorial waters for many years. The plaintiffs had given evidence about aggressive fishing practices and protests. The High Court had held that their resulting losses were not recoverable in law.
The court awarded the plaintiffs 25% of their taxed or agreed costs and 100% of the costs of the hearing transcripts. It made no order on costs for the plaintiffs’ applications to amend the statement of claim, first issued on 10 July 2006. For the motion for discovery, issued in 2010 and reserved by the High Court on 23 July 2011, the court awarded the plaintiffs 25% of those costs, when taxed if not agreed.