Veolia Water UK Plc & Ors v Fingal County Council

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application involving Company A and associated entities (collectively referred to as the Applicants) against a local government authority (the Respondent) regarding the timeliness of proceedings seeking damages related to the award of a water metering contract. The court had previously delivered a judgment on a preliminary issue addressing whether the Applicants were in time to bring their claim or whether an extension of time should be granted. The earlier judgment resolved some grounds in favor of extending time and others against. A subsequent ex tempore judgment extended time for one additional group of grounds, allowing the Applicants to pursue claims on two of three groups of grounds. The present opinion addresses the allocation of costs arising from these preliminary proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicants were in time to bring proceedings or entitled to an extension of time for their claims.
2. How the court should approach the assessment and allocation of costs in complex litigation involving multiple interlocutory issues and partial successes or failures.
3. Determination of the appropriate costs order following the resolution of the preliminary time bar issue.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent contended that it succeeded in excluding a significant number of issues from the proceedings by establishing that those claims were out of time and that no extension should be granted.
• On that basis, the Respondent argued it should be regarded as the winner of the preliminary issue and entitled to its costs, subject to allowances for the limited issues on which it was unsuccessful.

Applicants' Arguments

• The Applicants argued that a preliminary issue would only be directed if its resolution might end the proceedings; since the Respondent failed to end the proceedings entirely, it should be regarded as having lost the preliminary issue.
• The Applicants contended they were prima facie entitled to costs of the preliminary issue, with some allowance for their limited failures.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by recognizing the increased complexity and cost of modern litigation, emphasizing the importance of nuanced cost awards that reflect partial successes and failures rather than blanket awards to the overall winning party. The court underscored that costs remain discretionary and that special or unusual circumstances may justify departure from the default position that costs follow the event.

Applying these principles, the court analyzed the preliminary issue, noting that the Respondent succeeded in excluding some issues on grounds of time bar but failed to end the proceedings entirely, as the Applicants were granted extensions of time on other grounds. The court acknowledged merit in both parties' views on who should be considered the winner.

The court further examined the hearing length and allocation of time to the various issues. The legal issue on when time began to run took approximately one day of a six-day hearing, with the remaining time divided among three groups of grounds for extension of time. The Applicants succeeded on two groups, while the Respondent succeeded on one. The court found that the time devoted to successful issues for each party was roughly equal.

Given the equal success and the complexity of the issues, the court concluded that a fair approach was to make no order as to costs. The court also outlined alternative cost allocations if it were to regard either party as the clear winner, illustrating how costs would be apportioned based on hearing length attributable to unsuccessful issues raised by the winning party.

Holding and Implications

The court made no order as to costs in respect of the preliminary issue.

This decision reflects the court’s recognition of the complexity and partial successes on both sides, resulting in a roughly equal allocation of responsibility for costs. The ruling directly affects the parties by leaving them to bear their own costs for the preliminary issue, without establishing new precedent beyond the application of established principles for complex litigation and interlocutory cost assessments.