Cork County Council v The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns the fifth judgment in two related sets of judicial review proceedings between a local government authority ("Applicant") and a government minister ("Respondent") regarding planning and development decisions. Previous judgments addressed the quashing of ministerial directions and requirements under the Planning and Development Act 2000, including the removal of a development plan variation and coordination requirements between two local authorities. The current judgment deals specifically with the issue of costs arising from the latest challenge, which resulted in the quashing of a statutory requirement imposed on the Applicant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate legal approach to awarding costs where a party is only partially successful in judicial review proceedings?
2. Whether the unsuccessful issues in the proceedings added significantly to the overall costs, thereby justifying a reduction or discount in costs awarded.
3. How the court should apply the discretion under sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 in relation to costs in civil proceedings.
4. Whether any special costs rules apply, including those related to environmental litigation or public interest litigation.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by summarizing the current law on costs in civil proceedings, particularly the impact of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It identified that the Applicant was not entirely successful, thus full costs under s.169 do not automatically apply, and the court must exercise discretion under s.168.

The court emphasized the importance of assessing whether the losing issues materially increased the costs. This assessment involves comparing the actual proceedings with a hypothetical scenario limited to the successful issues. The court found that most paperwork and hearing time would have been necessary regardless of the losing issues, and that the hearing could not realistically have been compressed from two days to one.

The court rejected the Respondent’s suggestion of limiting costs to a single day as unrealistic and noted that only modest additional costs were incurred due to losing issues, insufficient to justify a discount. It highlighted the Supreme Court’s warning against detailed, contentious cost disputes that consume resources and create perverse incentives.

Balancing the need for fairness and practicality, the court concluded that since the losing issues did not significantly increase costs, no discount or complex cost order (such as a Veolia order) was warranted. Special costs rules, including those related to environmental litigation, were not applicable as relevant issues were not decided.

Holding and Implications

The court made the following orders:

• The Applicant (local government authority) is awarded the costs of the proceedings against the Respondent (government minister), including reserved costs, costs of written submissions, and costs for two counsel at the leave stage.
• The Applicant is also awarded the costs of the costs application itself against the Respondent, including reserved costs and costs of written submissions.
• For clarity, the Respondent may set off against these costs any costs previously awarded in relation to the stay.

DISPOSED OF

The decision directly affects the parties by awarding costs to the Applicant without discount despite partial success, reflecting a balanced and practical approach to cost awards in complex judicial review proceedings. No new precedent was established beyond applying established principles to the facts.