The Supreme Court has dismissed Tommy Grimes’s appeal against an order requiring him to pay the respondents’ costs of proceedings seeking to stop the Creamfields concert at Punchestown Racecourse in June 2000.
The appeal concerned costs only. The High Court had refused Grimes’s injunction application and ordered him to pay the respondents’ costs, to be taxed and ascertained. The Supreme Court affirmed that order.
Grimes had brought proceedings under section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976. His solicitors argued that planning permission had not been granted for the concert and that a condition attached to a 1998 permission prohibited such events. They also raised concerns about public health and safety, disruption to nearby residents and the event’s advertised finish time.
The respondents disputed that planning permission was required. Their evidence included historical uses of the racecourse for entertainment and previous concerts. The High Court found that the lands had an established occasional use for non-sporting events before 1 October 1964. It also found that, if the concert involved a change of use, that change was not material. The injunction application was refused on 21 June 2000.
On appeal, Grimes argued that the High Court had wrongly made him responsible for costs. His counsel said the respondents’ affidavit had been provided only on 19 June, the day before the hearing, and stressed that section 27 allowed members of the public to act as planning watchdogs. The respondents argued that the High Court had properly applied the usual rule that costs follow the event.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2002, Denham J. said the short timetable followed Grimes’s first objection letter, sent on 14 June, and did not justify overturning the costs decision. The public watchdog role could be relevant to costs, the court said, but was only one of several factors. That point had not been argued in the High Court, and there was no special reason to raise it for the first time on appeal.
The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal, affirming the costs order. It did not revisit the refusal of the injunction, which was not in issue on appeal.