The High Court has granted the Minister for Energy and Michael O’Connell leave to issue execution on two costs orders against Bula, after finding there was a good explanation for the delay and no relevant prejudice to Bula.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2008, Ms Justice Dunne also dismissed a motion by Bula to block enforcement. The ruling concerned costs orders made in 1997 by the High Court and in 1999 by the Supreme Court. It did not revisit the underlying claims or determine the final amount now due.
The proceedings began in 1986 over claims for damages and other relief relating to mining agreements and licences for adjoining properties in County Meath. After a 272-day High Court hearing, the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed in 1997. The Minister and Mr O’Connell were awarded costs against four plaintiffs, referred to in the judgment as Bula. The Supreme Court dismissed Bula’s appeal in 1999 and also awarded the Minister costs.
The Minister sought leave under Order 42, rule 24 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which requires court permission to issue execution more than six years after an order. Bula argued that enforcement should be refused because of inordinate and inexcusable delay and because it would breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Bula also challenged aspects of the taxation process used to assess costs.
The judge said enforcement of the High Court costs order had been stayed pending the appeal, and the final certificate assessing those costs was not issued until 2003. She accepted that the case’s unusual scale contributed to the time taken to tax the costs. The judgment also records an approximately eleven-month delay after paperwork submitted in 2004 was apparently not processed and was mislaid in the High Court Central Office.
Ms Justice Dunne rejected Bula’s contention that the certificates were defective because they named solicitors who were no longer acting when the final certificate issued. She also found no merit in the service complaints, noting that the High Court service issue had already been considered and that the other taxations had not been reviewed. She said the only possible prejudice identified was interest on unpaid costs, which did not outweigh the Minister’s right to enforce the orders.
The court held that the delay cases relied on by Bula, which largely concerned the risk of an unfair trial, did not justify refusing leave in this enforcement application. The judge was satisfied that the delay was explained and that Bula had suffered no relevant prejudice. She granted the Minister’s application for leave to issue execution and dismissed Bula’s motion.