The High Court has ordered McTigue Quarries Limited and Garry McTigue and Caroline McTigue to pay An Taisce’s costs of its principal application and its application for a protective costs order, after finding that the case raised issues of exceptional public importance.
Mr Justice Max Barrett made the costs order on 6 December 2016 under section 3(4) of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. The judgment addresses costs following an earlier decision in the same proceedings; it does not grant the injunction An Taisce had originally sought.
In the earlier judgment, the court accepted An Taisce’s arguments on the statutory effect of substitute consent, but declined injunctive relief. It said the local authority was best placed to decide whether to begin planning enforcement proceedings. The court had also granted An Taisce a protective costs order. The parties were then invited to make submissions on costs for the main proceedings and that costs-order application.
Section 3(1) generally requires each party in covered proceedings to bear its own costs. Section 3(4), however, permits a costs award where the matter is of exceptional public importance and special circumstances make an award consistent with the interests of justice.
The court accepted An Taisce’s submission that its earlier ruling had clarified an area of planning law that had not previously been judicially scrutinised. It said the clarification exposed a potential gap affecting other developments nationwide that might be proceeding without the required planning permission because of a misunderstanding about substitute consent. It also pointed to the public interest in compliance with planning law and Ireland’s obligations under relevant European legislation.
Among the special circumstances, the judge cited An Taisce’s success on almost all legal issues, its legitimate purpose as a charity working to protect Ireland’s natural and built heritage, and the fact that it failed to obtain an injunction for reasons unrelated to its conduct. The court also noted that its earlier findings meant the respondents were engaged in a notable breach of planning law, while qualifying that the breach was not entirely apparent until that judgment was delivered.
The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to award An Taisce the costs of both applications. The judgment does not specify the amount of costs.