The Court of Appeal has dismissed David Cooper’s appeal against a High Court decision rejecting his challenge to a legal costs adjudication. It said the appeal did not identify an error in the adjudicator’s assessment and was an attempt to revisit earlier judgments.
The dispute began after Cooper, who lives in Dundrum, objected to a planning application for Dundrum Town Centre. The application was granted by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. An Bord Pleanála later ruled Cooper’s appeal invalid because it lacked the planning authority’s acknowledgment of receipt of his earlier submission, as required by planning legislation.
Cooper’s judicial review challenge to that decision was dismissed by the High Court, which ordered him to pay costs to the Board and the notice parties. A subsequent appeal was struck out because he had not obtained the High Court’s leave to appeal. The costs were then assessed by the Legal Costs Adjudicator: €20,979.30 for the High Court proceedings and €5,557 for the Court of Appeal proceedings, with VAT also payable on the professional fee element. The adjudicator declined to vary the assessment on review.
Cooper appealed that refusal to the High Court, which rejected his challenge. He then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. The court explained that a High Court review of a costs adjudication is limited: the person challenging it must show an error in the allowance or disallowance and that the error made the determination unjust.
The Court of Appeal said Cooper had identified no such error and had submitted no evidence to support one. It noted that he had confirmed he was not challenging the adjudicator’s approach. Instead, his argument relied on a later Supreme Court judgment and sought to change costs orders in the underlying judicial review proceedings, as well as to reinstate his planning appeal.
The court said those matters were unrelated to the statutory appeal against the costs adjudication and that using the appeal to challenge final judgments was impermissible. It dismissed the appeal, describing it and the proceedings as an abuse of process.
The second respondent was successful. The court’s provisional view was that it was entitled to its costs, but it did not make a final costs order in this judgment. Cooper may file a submission of up to 1,000 words on an alternative costs order within 14 days; the second respondent may reply within a similar period.