The High Court ruled that the District Court has no jurisdiction to award costs in proceedings under section 108 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, which allows applications for measures to prevent or limit noise.
Mr Justice Hedigan gave the ruling on 13 July 2007 in a consultative case stated from District Judge Oliver McGuinness. The questions arose after a complaint by Southern Hotel Sligo Limited about Iarnród Éireann’s practice of leaving train engines running overnight beside the hotel.
The hotel said the noise disturbed guests and harmed its business. Iarnród Éireann argued that the trains had to remain running for technical reasons and that there was no realistic alternative at the time. It also said the hotel’s extension towards the station had worsened the impact.
During the District Court proceedings, Iarnród Éireann said the trains would be replaced and that, in the meantime, locomotives would be detached and parked farther from the hotel. After the replacement took place, the hotel sought no further relief apart from its costs.
The District Court had earlier awarded the hotel the costs of a hearing day after an adjournment prompted by a misunderstanding about whether the case would proceed. The parties later disputed whether the court had power to award costs in the section 108 case.
Mr Justice Hedigan answered the first two questions in the negative: the Act did not give the District Court power to award costs, and the District Court had no inherent jurisdiction to do so. He concluded that section 108 proceedings are public law complaints, rather than civil proceedings within the meaning of the District Court costs rule. That rule governs how an existing costs power is exercised; it cannot create a power where none exists.
The judge said that excluding costs was consistent with section 108’s role as a public watchdog procedure, allowing applications in the public or private interest without exposing either side to a costs order. He relied on the District Court’s limited, statute-defined jurisdiction and earlier authorities on costs.
Because both answers were negative, the questions about the source, form and enforcement of any costs power did not arise. The High Court also concluded that the earlier order for the hearing day’s costs had been made without jurisdiction. The judgment did not make a costs award for either party.