The High Court has awarded Dublin City Council the costs of its Priory Hall fire-safety proceedings through 4 November 2011. The court made no order for costs in favour of either side for a separate hearing on 17 November 2011.
The ruling concerns costs in proceedings brought under section 23 of the Fire Services Act 1981. The council had obtained an order on 14 October 2011 requiring occupation of the Priory Hall apartment complex in Donaghmede to cease. The judgment says the order required many families and individuals to leave their homes amid evidence of serious defects that posed a fire risk. The first respondent, Thomas McFeely, had admitted serious defects existed.
The court later monitored whether the respondents carried out remedial works under an undertaking and an agreed programme. On 4 November 2011, it found the respondents had breached undertakings and court orders and had not implemented the programme. In the costs ruling, President Kearns said the council was entitled to its costs for the proceedings, including all hearing days up to and including 4 November. He described that day’s hearing as part of the court’s monitoring of progress on the works.
The council also sought costs for the 17 November hearing, at which the High Court imposed a fine on McFeely and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment for contempt. The Supreme Court later set those orders aside on appeal. It directed that McFeely recover the costs of his appeal from the council, subject to stated exclusions, and made no order for costs of the High Court motion.
In considering costs for the 17 November hearing, the High Court criticised the respondents’ solicitors for not seeking a note of the ruling and reasons before applying to the Supreme Court for a stay. The judge said a court note and a stenographer’s transcript were available. He also noted that the council did not appear before the Supreme Court despite notice of the application. In the circumstances, the High Court made no order for costs for the 17 November hearing in favour of either party.
The ruling addresses costs only; it does not revisit the underlying fire-safety proceedings in detail.