The High Court has refused an application by Cliffs of Moher Centre Limited and Clare County Council for security for costs against Diamrem Limited in an ongoing planning enforcement case concerning a temporary car park beside the Cliffs of Moher visitor centre.
The substantive case is an application under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Diamrem seeks an order requiring the respondents to comply with conditions attached to planning permission for the visitor centre. It alleges that the Council should close the temporary car park and that keeping it open has undermined the viability of a park and ride service. Those allegations have not been determined in this judgment.
The permission, granted in 2002, included conditions requiring agreement on a mobility management strategy and on arrangements for a temporary construction car park. Diamrem’s director, John D. Flanagan, said in an affidavit that the Council had agreed the temporary car park would remain only pending a park and ride system. The respondents dispute that the permission required the car park’s removal and say the enforcement claim is out of time and that closing the car park would not be in the public interest.
The respondents sought security under section 52 of the Companies Act 2014, arguing that Diamrem was unlikely to pay their costs if they successfully defended the case. The judge accepted that they had shown a prima facie defence and that the company was unlikely to meet the Council’s costs. He did not decide whether those defences would succeed.
Diamrem argued that the environmental costs provisions of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 could apply, and that special circumstances weighed against requiring security. The judge said the case’s economic motivation did not rule out an environmental issue, and he could not safely conclude at this stage that Diamrem could never qualify for a protective costs order. No such application had yet been made.
The judge also found special circumstances supporting refusal. The car park was described as temporary, and the Council had entered a commercial agreement with Diamrem to operate a park and ride service. The court considered that retaining the car park could potentially have a significant adverse effect on the service’s viability. It did not determine the legality of the car park, the merits of the enforcement claim, or whether a protective costs order should be granted.
The application for security for costs was refused. The underlying section 160 proceedings were not resolved by this decision.