The High Court dismissed an application by Friends of the Curragh Environment Limited for a protective costs order, finding that its proposed judicial review did not raise an issue of general public importance. The ruling addressed the costs application only; it did not decide whether the two planning permissions were lawful.
The group sought orders preventing it from being liable for other parties’ costs, requiring it to provide security for costs, or requiring undertakings as to damages. It said it would not proceed with its judicial review if the costs protection were refused.
The underlying challenge concerns An Bord Pleanála permissions granted to the Trustees of the Turf Club on 18 January 2006. One allows realignment of about 1.1 kilometres of the R413, including five new accesses and a horse and rider underpass. The other allows demolition of the western half of the Curragh’s west stand and construction of a 72-bedroom hotel and related facilities.
The group’s grounds included alleged unlawful delegation of matters to Kildare County Council, failure to assess a wider redevelopment master plan, criticism of the environmental impact statement, and alleged prejudice from the timing of notification. These were allegations, not findings on the planning permissions. The judge said the proposed challenge would involve applying established legal principles to the facts and did not identify a point of law of general public importance.
The judgment said an environmental impact assessment had been carried out for both proposed developments, supported by an environmental impact statement of more than 200 pages. It also said any later phase of the master plan would require planning permission and assessment. On notification, the judge treated 18 January—the date the Board’s decision order was finalised and issued—as the date from which time ran for the statutory challenge.
The group also argued that EU Directive 2003/35 required a protective costs order because Ireland had not implemented it by the deadline. The judge rejected that argument, finding the relevant provisions insufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to have direct effect. The judgment added that the directive could not support a costs order against the Turf Club, which was not an emanation of the State.
The court dismissed the application. It made no order exempting the group from security for costs or an undertaking as to damages; the judgment noted that no such applications had yet been made, while leaving open the possibility of applications if appropriate.