Howard v. Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiffs appealed solely against the order for costs made by Judge Lynch in the High Court on 8 June 1994. In the substantive proceedings the High Court had, in a reserved judgment, dismissed every claim advanced by the Plaintiffs and refused all requested reliefs. After hearing submissions on costs, Judge Lynch applied the standard rule that “costs follow the event” and awarded the entire costs of the action to the Defendants.

The present appeal to the Supreme Court therefore concerned only whether that costs order should stand. No challenge was made to any other aspect of the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s discretionary decision to award the costs of the proceedings to the Defendants.
2. Whether any recognised exception to the general rule that “costs follow the event” was established on the facts of this case.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

• Attorney MacMenamin submitted that the Court should depart from the normal costs rule because the proceedings raised issues of significant public importance.
• He relied on previous authorities in which plaintiffs who failed on certain constitutional claims were nevertheless awarded their costs in order to encourage the ventilation of important public issues.

Defendants’ Arguments

• Attorney Connolly accepted that an earlier set of proceedings—Plaintiff v. Entity A (No. 1)—had raised matters of public importance, but argued that the present litigation did not add anything of comparable novelty or value.
• He contended that the Plaintiffs had proceeded despite clear assurances in the Defence that no further development at the Location would occur without proper planning permission, and should therefore bear the normal consequences of losing the case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court reiterated that a judge’s determination of costs is a discretionary matter that must be exercised judicially. The default position under the Rules of the Superior Courts is that costs follow the event. The Court examined the Plaintiffs’ reliance on earlier authorities where costs were awarded to unsuccessful parties but found that each of those cases involved issues of broad constitutional significance that would not otherwise have been resolved.

In contrast, the Court noted that:

• The Defendants had expressly stated, both in correspondence and in their Defence, that they would undertake no further development at the Location without first obtaining the necessary planning permission.
• The Plaintiffs nevertheless elected to commence fresh proceedings and assumed the attendant risks.
• No exceptional circumstances existed that would make it unjust to apply the ordinary costs rule.

Finding no misapplication of principle by Judge Lynch, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with his exercise of discretion.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The order awarding the costs of the High Court proceedings to the Defendants is affirmed, and the Defendants are also awarded the costs of the appeal.

The decision confirms the high threshold that must be met before an appellate court will disturb a trial judge’s discretionary order as to costs. It applies, but does not modify, the existing principle that “costs follow the event,” and therefore sets no new precedent beyond reinforcing that rule.