The High Court has ordered Coillte and the Commissioner for Environmental Information to each pay 50% of People Over Wind’s costs in proceedings concerning access to environmental information.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 26 May 2023, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland ruled on People Over Wind’s application for costs. No other party sought costs, and no costs were sought against the Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications, who was a notice party.
The proceedings arose after Coillte refused People Over Wind’s request for documents under the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations. The matter was appealed to the Commissioner, who stated questions to the High Court. The costs application was considered under sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
The judge divided the case into two issues. The first was whether Coillte could rely on the Freedom of Information Act 2014, either as a body covered by it or through a separate confidentiality protection under Article 8 of the environmental information regulations. The court’s earlier substantive decision had rejected Coillte’s arguments on that issue. Justice Hyland said costs should follow the outcome and ordered Coillte to pay half of People Over Wind’s costs, reflecting her assessment that the issue took roughly half the court time.
The second issue was whether the Freedom of Information Act’s provisions amounted to protection for confidentiality. The Commissioner had raised that question in correspondence and in the questions referred to the court; People Over Wind had not raised it in its appeal. The judge rejected the argument that the Act’s protection was not a form of confidentiality. Although People Over Wind made submissions on the point and its position was not adopted, the judge said the issue had been generated by the Commissioner and would not otherwise have come before the court.
Justice Hyland therefore ordered the Commissioner to pay the remaining 50% of People Over Wind’s costs, representing the costs of addressing those questions. The judgment determines the costs application; it does not specify a total sum in the supplied text.