Dunnes Stores v An Bord Plean&#225;la & anor, High Court of Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

Barrett J.

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Dunnes Stores v. An Bord Pleanála & anor

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant initiated judicial review proceedings ostensibly challenging the legality of a decision by the Respondent to grant retention permission to a third party, Company B, in relation to minor and cosmetic alterations to a shopping centre development in The City. The Applicant, however, had no substantive objection to the alterations themselves. The court found that the true purpose of the proceedings was to secure an advantage in an ongoing contractual dispute between the Applicant, Company B, and a related financial entity. The court dismissed the proceedings as an abuse of process, concluding that the Applicant's motives were collateral and illegitimate in the context of planning law. The Applicant subsequently sought a certificate to appeal this decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether costs should be awarded on a solicitor and client basis rather than the usual party and party basis in light of the abuse of process finding.
Whether the Applicant’s application for a certificate to appeal raised points of law of exceptional public importance.
The appropriate measure of costs to be awarded to the parties following the court’s prior judgments dismissing the proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The Applicant contended that its alleged misbehaviour did not reach the level warranting costs on a solicitor and client basis, suggesting it was less serious than in comparable cases.
The Applicant sought a stay of the court’s costs order to consider appealing the decision.

Company B's Arguments

Company B sought costs on a solicitor and client basis, emphasizing the abuse of process inherent in the Applicant’s proceedings.
Company B highlighted that the costs would ultimately be borne by a public asset management agency and taxpayers, arguing it was unjust for them to bear expenses caused by the Applicant’s misuse of court process.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent sought costs on a party and party basis only.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Geaney v. Elan Corporation plc [2005] IEHC 111	Principles guiding when costs may be awarded on a solicitor and client basis, particularly to mark court’s displeasure at conduct in proceedings.	The court applied Geaney to justify awarding costs on a solicitor and client basis due to the abuse of process found in the current proceedings, noting the entire case was infected unlike the partial failings in Geaney.
Quinn Group v. An Bord Pleanála [2001] 1 I.R. 505	Legal principles regarding judicial review applications and their proper use.	The court confirmed that its prior judgment conformed to Quinn Group and emphasized no novel legal principles were introduced, noting the peculiar facts of the case limited its broader applicability.
Glancr Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250	Criteria for identifying points of law of exceptional public importance relevant to granting certificates to appeal.	The court found the Applicant’s points did not meet the threshold of exceptional public importance and that no affirmative public benefit would arise from an appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by recalling its prior findings that the Applicant’s judicial review was an abuse of process, motivated by an ulterior purpose unrelated to planning law. It emphasized the unusual nature of the case, where the Applicant had no substantive objection to the planning permission under challenge. The court explained that costs are generally awarded on a party and party basis, but it has discretion to award costs on a solicitor and client basis to mark disapproval of improper conduct. Applying the principles from Geaney, the court held that the abuse of process in this case justified departing from the normal costs regime. The court also considered the public interest dimension, noting that Company B’s costs would be borne by a public asset management agency and taxpayers, reinforcing the appropriateness of a solicitor and client costs order. Regarding the Applicant’s application for a certificate to appeal, the court found no points of law of exceptional public importance and no public benefit to justify an appeal, concluding that the Applicant’s difficulties lay with the application of well-established principles to unique facts rather than any novel legal issue.

Holding and Implications

The court ORDERED that costs be awarded to Company B on a solicitor and client basis, reflecting the court’s strong disapproval of the abuse of process in the proceedings. Costs were also awarded to the Respondent on a party and party basis as sought. The court amended a minor textual error in its prior judgment on a consent basis. The court declined to grant a stay of the costs order. The direct effect is that the Applicant will bear the higher scale of costs for Company B, while the Respondent receives costs on the usual scale. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed established principles regarding abuse of process and costs awards. The decision serves as a clear judicial warning against misuse of court procedures for collateral purposes and underscores the court’s role in protecting the integrity of its processes.