The High Court has awarded three neighbours their costs up to 12 December 2018 in a dispute over a boundary wall in Blackrock, Co Louth. Each side must bear its own costs incurred after that date, and the applicants’ costs are to be adjudicated on the Circuit Court scale.
The case began in June 2018, when Sharon McArdle, Shirley McArdle and Olivia McArdle sought an order under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to restrain Donal Carroll from carrying out what they said was unauthorised development. The application concerned a wall built on Mr Carroll’s land behind the applicants’ existing boundary wall. They also sought an inspection of the property.
The proceedings later became moot after An Bord Pleanála granted retention permission for the wall. The judgment says the Board made its decision on 17 December 2018, but identifies 12 December 2018 as the date on which the proceedings became moot and the date marking the limit of the applicants’ costs award. The court did not decide the original enforcement application on its merits.
The judge said Mr Carroll had decided to seek retention permission weeks before the court case began, after a local authority warning letter. But the intention had not been expressly communicated to the applicants. The court found that the wall was built hastily despite their objections and without prior consultation, and that its height required planning permission. Those actions contributed significantly to the dispute and the proceedings, the judge said.
The court also considered the parties’ conduct after the case began, including the applicants’ incomplete account of exchanges concerning the wall’s safety and their failure to respond to a proposal to pause the case while the planning appeal was pending. The judge said both sides contributed to the lack of constructive communication that followed.
The applicants had argued that the respondent should pay their costs because his participation in the retention process helped make the case moot. The respondent sought his costs, citing the applicants’ conduct and disputing the value they attributed to his land. The court rejected his costs claim and found the applicants had not proved that the land exceeded €3 million. It therefore did not need to decide issues raised under the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011.