The High Court directed Friends of the Irish Environment CLG to notify the Attorney General of proceedings challenging the Legal Aid Board’s refusal to let the company apply for civil legal aid. The court identified an EU law question for the Attorney General’s consideration but did not decide whether legal persons qualify for aid.
The applicant argued that the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 refers to “persons” and should be read to include both natural and legal persons. It also argued that the Act should, so far as possible, be interpreted consistently with the Aarhus Convention’s requirement that certain environmental judicial procedures not be prohibitively expensive.
The Legal Aid Board submitted that the Act was intended to apply only to natural persons. It also argued that the Aarhus Convention did not affect the Act’s proper interpretation, pointing to Irish environmental litigation costs provisions. The Board said the State was not a party to the case and that the adequacy of those provisions or other measures was outside its knowledge.
In a ruling delivered on 9 July 2020, Ms Justice Hyland said resolving the Aarhus issue might require consideration of whether the domestic costs provisions fulfil the Convention’s requirements. She considered it appropriate for Ireland and the Attorney General to give their views.
The court directed the applicant, as the party carrying the proceedings, to serve the Attorney General with the pleadings, legal submissions, books of authority and the ruling by close of business on 10 July. The question identified was whether EU law obliges the High Court to interpret the 1995 Act so that references to “person” include legal persons, to achieve the Convention’s objective that the relevant procedures not be prohibitively expensive.
The court proposed that the Attorney General file written submissions and any affidavits by 23 July, with any replies from the applicant and the Board due by 29 July. A hearing was proposed for 30 July, subject to court availability. The parties or the Attorney General may apply in relation to those dates. The ruling set a process for further consideration; it did not determine the underlying legal aid challenge.