The High Court made no order as to costs on an appeal involving the Environmental Protection Agency and Thomas Deegan, despite the EPA’s request for its costs in both the appeal and the court below.
In a judgment delivered on 17 October 2019, Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton addressed the costs application after judgment in the appeal had been delivered on 31 July 2019. The parties had been given time to consider that judgment and make submissions on the final orders. The judgment on costs does not state the substantive outcome of the appeal.
The EPA, identified in the judgment as the respondent to the appeal, sought the costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the court below. Counsel for the EPA argued that the usual rule applied: costs should follow the event, and the EPA had succeeded on appeal. Mr Deegan, the appellant, opposed the appeal costs application. His counsel submitted that special circumstances justified departing from the usual rule, including that the case clarified the law on a matter of public importance.
The judge described the court’s costs jurisdiction as discretionary, with the general rule that costs follow the event unless special cause justifies another order. He noted that cases involving a point of law of general importance may be relevant to the exercise of that discretion, but any departure must be reasoned and grounded in the circumstances of the case.
The court regarded the proceedings as a test case concerning statutory provisions relevant to commercial peat harvesting. The judgment said the outcome would provide greater clarity on licensing compliance for people and companies engaged in commercial peat harvesting in Ireland. It also referred to the importance of peat harvesting and turbary rights to communities, employment and commercial activity, particularly in the midlands.
The judge refused the application for costs, saying the Circuit Court costs orders had been affirmed and that, in all the circumstances, the interests of justice were best met by making no order as to costs on the appeal. The order addressed appeal costs; the judgment does not set out the substantive appeal ruling.