Judgment: 2018-02-05 · Court archive

High Court makes no costs order after quarry case settlement

The court rejected Laois County Council’s application for its costs, finding the settlement had not dealt with costs and each side should bear its own.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 69

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Laois County Council (Applicant)
  • Mr Justice Max Barrett
What

The court rejected Laois County Council’s application for its costs, finding the settlement had not dealt with costs and each side should bear its own.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Clonalsee, County Laois
  • County Laois
  • Clonalsee
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The High Court made no order as to costs after Laois County Council applied for its legal costs in proceedings concerning alleged quarrying at Clonalsee, County Laois. The case had settled by consent in July 2017, and the settlement order did not mention costs.

Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 5 February 2018. The council had issued its application in December 2015, seeking prohibitory and declaratory relief concerning alleged quarrying activities. The case was transferred from the Circuit Court to the High Court in April 2016 and listed for hearing in July 2017. It settled that day without a full hearing.

A perfected order issued on 14 August 2017. By consent, it prohibited the respondents, their servants and agents, and anyone with notice of the order from excavating materials, expanding the quarry or removing materials from the respondents’ lands after 21 July 2017, unless the council expressly authorised the works. It also required plant and machinery to be removed from the second and third respondents’ lands by 31 July, except equipment agreed with the council for restoration. The respondents were to agree a restoration plan with the local authority, setting out steps to restore the lands to agricultural use, within four weeks. The order said the matter would be listed for mention on 13 October 2017.

The judgment said the settlement order reflected a note given to the court on 20 July and recorded that the order appeared to have been complied with up to the judgment. Neither the order nor the handwritten note addressed costs.

When the parties returned to court on 22 January 2018, the council sought its costs. The respondents objected, arguing first that the settlement had made no provision for costs. The judge accepted that submission. He said that where a settlement does not address costs, the natural inference is that each party bears its own, and a court will not imply a costs term into the agreement. He therefore made no order as to costs. The court did not consider the respondents’ further arguments on costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review