The High Court ordered Indaver NV to pay An Bord Pleanála and Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment (CHASE) their costs from 10 September 2012, after finding that Indaver’s conduct of judicial review proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. The order was limited to costs incurred from that date.
The proceedings challenged An Bord Pleanála’s June 2011 refusal of permission for a waste-to-energy facility and transfer station on a 12-hectare site at Ringaskiddy, County Cork. Indaver withdrew the case shortly before its scheduled hearing in October 2012. The Board and CHASE then sought costs, despite the usual statutory rule that each party bears its own costs in relevant environmental proceedings.
Indaver had sought an adjournment, saying it needed a Cork County Council evaluation of the county’s waste management plan. The adjournment application was refused on 18 October. Indaver received the evaluation that day and later said it vindicated its view that the plan was no longer relevant. It told the other parties it would inform the Court that the case would not proceed.
The Board argued that Indaver had delayed seeking an adjournment and allowed legal costs to rise while not intending to pursue the case. It also questioned why the evaluation first supported an adjournment and then became the reason to withdraw. CHASE said the late withdrawal imposed costs on a community organisation with limited resources. Those were submissions by the parties, not findings in themselves.
The Court held that section 50B(3)(b) of the Planning and Development Act allowed costs to be awarded because of the manner in which a party conducted proceedings. It found that Indaver knew the evaluation’s substance from Council meeting minutes dated 10 September, and could have put those minutes before the Court. The judge concluded that Indaver had no bona fide belief in its case after that date, prolonged the proceedings and withdrew at the last moment.
The judgment concerns costs arising from the withdrawn judicial review. It does not determine the merits of the challenge to the planning refusal or grant permission for the proposed development.