Judgment: 2019-12-05 · Court archive

Galway County Council ordered to pay costs in horse destruction case

The High Court awarded the applicant his costs after finding that the council’s conditional €1,750 offer did not displace the usual rule that costs follow the event.

High Court · [2019] IEHC 817

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Galway County Council (Respondent)
  • Garrett Simons (Judge)
What

The High Court awarded the applicant his costs after finding that the council’s conditional €1,750 offer did not displace the usual rule that costs follow the event.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 15 May 2019

    The council also relied on a letter dated 15 May 2019 offering €1,750. The letter denied liability, reserved the council’s right to appeal and potentially recover the sum if its appeal succeeded, and did not accept responsibility for costs already incurred. The judge held that it was not an offer to satisfy all or part of the claim under the applicable costs rule. He also noted that the damages award exceeded the offer.

  • 26 June 2019

    The court ordered the council to pay the applicant’s costs of the judicial review proceedings, including reserved costs, two sets of written submissions, senior and junior counsel, and the costs hearing. The 26 June 2019 hearing is to be measured as a second day’s hearing, rather than as a separate brief or instructions fee. If the parties cannot agree the amount, it is to be adjudicated by the Legal Costs Adjudicator.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2019, Mr Justice Garrett Simons rejected the council’s arguments for reducing or avoiding its costs liability. He found that the applicant had succeeded on the central outcomes: establishing the unlawfulness of the horse’s destruction and securing an award of damages.

Galway County Council must pay the applicant’s legal costs in judicial review proceedings over the destruction of his horse, the High Court has ruled. The costs order follows earlier judgments that the council acted unlawfully and that the applicant was entitled to €2,000 in damages.

In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2019, Mr Justice Garrett Simons rejected the council’s arguments for reducing or avoiding its costs liability. He found that the applicant had succeeded on the central outcomes: establishing the unlawfulness of the horse’s destruction and securing an award of damages.

The council argued that the applicant had failed on some issues, including whether the horse’s initial detention was unlawful, and that the €2,000 award was well below the €35,000 value he had claimed for the animal. It sought a one-third reduction in the costs of the first hearing. The judge concluded that the unsuccessful arguments had not added appreciably to the costs. The initial detention issue took little court time, while the damages hearing focused largely on the council’s argument that no damages were legally payable.

The council also relied on a letter dated 15 May 2019 offering €1,750. The letter denied liability, reserved the council’s right to appeal and potentially recover the sum if its appeal succeeded, and did not accept responsibility for costs already incurred. The judge held that it was not an offer to satisfy all or part of the claim under the applicable costs rule. He also noted that the damages award exceeded the offer.

The court ordered the council to pay the applicant’s costs of the judicial review proceedings, including reserved costs, two sets of written submissions, senior and junior counsel, and the costs hearing. The 26 June 2019 hearing is to be measured as a second day’s hearing, rather than as a separate brief or instructions fee. If the parties cannot agree the amount, it is to be adjudicated by the Legal Costs Adjudicator.

Execution of the costs order is stayed if there is an appeal to the Court of Appeal or an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The judgment does not determine whether any such appeal will be brought.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review