By Niamh Ellis
The Supreme Court has upheld an order requiring Joseph O'Connor to pay Dunnes Stores Limited's costs arising from an unsuccessful planning-related judicial review concerning premises in Nenagh.
The underlying High Court proceedings challenged a certificate issued by Nenagh Urban District Council on 27 September 1994. O'Connor sought several forms of relief, including an order quashing the certificate and orders concerning the alleged unauthorised development, traffic safety, sewerage, water supply and occupation of the premises.
The High Court refused his judicial review application in July 1996. It ordered O'Connor to pay Dunnes Stores' costs but made no costs order in favour of the council. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, O'Connor's appeal had been narrowed to the single question of whether Dunnes should have received its costs.
O'Connor argued that the proceedings raised a matter of public interest and concerned a public document. He also said Dunnes was only a notice party and that he should not be penalised for losing the substantive case.
Dunnes argued that the original relief sought could have had serious practical consequences for its interests. The company said quashing the certificate could affect issues arising under planning law and could also have consequences for a future sale or compulsory purchase compensation.
Mrs Justice Susan Denham said costs are a matter for judicial discretion, with the normal rule being that they follow the result of the case. She found that Dunnes was a necessary party, had participated fully, had acted in good faith and had succeeded in the proceedings.
Although the case contained an element of public interest, the Supreme Court did not consider it a test case or one raising issues of sufficiently broad public importance to justify departing from the normal costs rule.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court costs order in favour of Dunnes Stores in place.