The High Court has ordered An Bord Pleanála to pay the applicants’ costs in two linked judicial review cases over a planning decision, after they secured substantial success in earlier proceedings. The court adjourned a separate question about the costs of a failed interlocutory application in one case.
In a judgment delivered on 8 June 2022, Mr Justice Humphreys ruled on costs following an earlier decision granting certiorari of the board’s decision in Flannery v An Bord Pleanála. That earlier ruling, in February 2022, set aside the challenged decision. The June judgment dealt with costs only; it did not revisit the planning decision.
The Flannery applicants were James Bernard Flannery, Jim Nolan and Patsy Kearns, as trustees of Kevin’s GAA. The related Carroll case was brought by Barry Carroll and BPAC Property Holdings (Ireland) Limited. The board had proposed awarding 57% of costs in Flannery and 50% in Carroll, based largely on the proportion of decided points each group won.
The judge declined to apply those proposed discounts. He said the applicants’ success was substantial: on the board’s own analysis, the Flannery applicants won a majority of the decided points, while the Carroll applicants won half. The court also considered the environmental planning context, the practical cost of litigating detailed costs allocations and the way the cases had been presented. The three linked cases had been heard together over four days, and the judge said the applicants’ submissions were compact.
The court ordered the board to pay the Flannery applicants’ costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs and written submissions, but excluded costs associated with the interlocutory application. The judge adjourned that part of the costs claim and said further focused written submissions should be provided if the applicants wished to pursue it. He noted that the claim lacked an evidential basis and that further submissions should address what factual proof, if any, would be needed to raise the legal issue.
In the Carroll case, the board was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs and written submissions. The cases were listed for mention on 20 June 2022 to consider the unresolved Flannery interlocutory costs issue, the costs of the costs hearing and any consequential directions. The judgment does not state the outcome of that later mention.