The Supreme Court has made no order for costs after dismissing an appeal over the remittal of a planning permission decision to An Bord Pleanála for reconsideration.
In a ruling delivered on 29 May 2024, the Court refused the appellants’ request for their appeal costs against the Board and Fitzwilliam DL Limited, the notice party. It concluded that there were no special circumstances making a costs award in the appellants’ favour necessary in the interests of justice.
The appeal concerned the remittal of proceedings to the Board after the High Court quashed its grant of planning permission to Fitzwilliam DL Limited. On 24 April 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against remittal, while deleting directions the High Court had set for the Board’s reconsideration.
The Court said the Planning and Development Act 2000 makes remittal the default where the planning applicant seeks it, unless the court considers remittal would be unlawful. It described the threshold for refusing remittal as high and said such refusals would be rare and exceptional. The Court also held that the High Court may give appropriate directions on remittal, though it removed the directions in this case.
The appellants argued that the appeal was a test case with implications for around 10 to 20 pending High Court proceedings and more than 60 applications before the Board. They said the Board had benefited from clarification of the law. The Board and the notice party opposed a costs order. The Board submitted that any award should be against the notice party alone; the notice party argued it would be unfair to bear costs when it had successfully defended the appeal.
The Supreme Court accepted that the case clarified the law and that the Board would benefit from that clarification. But it said the Board had succeeded on the appeal and that its arguments had been adopted in most respects. The appellants had lost on the central issue of whether there should be remittal, had brought the appeal in their own interests, and already had a High Court costs order for the substantive judicial review application.
The Court said the notice party had succeeded overall in the appeal and would not gain systemically from the clarification. It therefore found no special circumstances to award the appellants costs against either respondent. The ruling addresses costs only; it does not reverse the dismissal of the appeal or the remittal for reconsideration.