The High Court has ordered Killarney Town Council and Kerry County Council to pay 50% of the costs of a family’s unsuccessful judicial review, after finding special circumstances justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the outcome.
The applicants, Vera Dooley, Thomas Dooley, and two minor children suing through their mother, had sought orders aimed at securing permanent housing. They had lived for several years with their children in a one-bedroom chalet on a halting site. The family considered the accommodation unsuitable and overcrowded, although the judge concluded it did not meet the statutory definition of overcrowding.
Their judicial review application had failed. In an earlier judgment, the court made some factual findings in the applicants’ favour and criticised the councils for failing to reply to some correspondence from their solicitors and to keep the family or its solicitors properly informed about a replacement chalet offered in October 2007. The accepted offer did not materialise. The judge concluded that the councils’ actions and omissions did not justify granting the relief sought.
The councils, as successful respondents, sought their costs. The family opposed that application and sought its own costs, arguing that the councils’ handling of their correspondence and the late chalet offer were special features warranting a departure from the usual rule. The councils’ barrister accepted that the court had criticised their responses to some letters but argued that this should not determine the costs decision. He also pointed to an offer made shortly before the hearing that the applicants had rejected.
Justice Michael Peart said it was reasonable for the family to bring proceedings after the councils failed to address their solicitors’ correspondence meaningfully. He noted the urgency of receiving a response given the very young children involved, and considered the late offer made in October 2007. He also took into account that the applicants had not accepted that offer at the time. The issue of tar barrels and plant on the premises was not particularly relevant to costs.
Balancing those circumstances against the failure of the judicial review, the judge ordered that no costs be awarded against the applicants. He awarded them 50% of their costs of the proceedings, to be taxed if the parties could not agree. The order concerned costs only; the application for judicial review remained unsuccessful.