Crofton Buildings Management CLG & Anor v An Bord Pleanála and Fitzwilliam DL Ltd (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellants—a management company and an individual—successfully obtained an order of certiorari in the High Court quashing a planning permission granted to the Notice Party. The High Court remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration and, in doing so, gave procedural directions. The Appellants appealed those directions to the Supreme Court. On 24 April 2024 the Supreme Court (per Judge Donnelly, nem diss) dismissed the appeal but varied the High Court order by deleting the directions. The present ruling deals solely with the allocation of costs for that unsuccessful appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary power under s. 50B(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to award costs to the unsuccessful Appellants in a matter said to be of “exceptional public importance.”
2. If so, whether the costs should be awarded against the Respondent, the Notice Party, or both.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• The appeal was a “test case” clarifying s. 50A(9A) and affects 10–20 pending High Court proceedings and over 60 applications before the Respondent, thereby constituting a matter of exceptional public importance.
• The Respondent benefitted most from that clarification and had not opposed the grant of leave to appeal; justice therefore required the Respondent to bear the Appellants’ costs.
• The Notice Party was unsuccessful on the issue of retaining the High Court’s directions and should likewise contribute to costs.

Respondent’s Arguments

• If any costs order were appropriate, it should fall on the Notice Party rather than the Respondent.

Notice Party’s Arguments

• Imposing costs on the Notice Party would be unfair because it could not recover its own costs despite prevailing on the principal appeal.
• The Respondent, not the Notice Party, was the systemic beneficiary of the legal clarification.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began with the statutory default in s. 50B(2): each party bears its own costs. Subsection (4) allows a departure only where (a) the matter is of exceptional public importance and (b) special circumstances make an award “in the interests of justice.”

• Exceptional public importance: The Court accepted that the appeal clarified remittals under s. 50A(9A) and affected numerous pending cases.
• Special circumstances / interests of justice: The Court balanced several factors:
  • The Appellants wholly lost the appeal on the central issue of remittal.
  • The Notice Party succeeded overall and would not systemically benefit from the clarification.
  • The Respondent did benefit from the clarification but had also been successful and had largely advanced the reasoning adopted by the Court.
  • The proceedings were brought in the Appellants’ own interest, not to vindicate a constitutional or public right.
  • The Appellants already held a favourable High Court costs order on the underlying judicial review.

Weighing these elements, the Court held that no “special circumstances” existed that would make it just to shift costs away from the default rule.

Holding and Implications

No Order as to the costs of the appeal.

Each party must bear its own costs for the Supreme Court proceedings. The decision reinforces the restrictive approach to awarding costs to unsuccessful parties under s. 50B(4) and signals that even test-case status and public importance do not suffice without additional special circumstances. No new precedent was created, but existing guidance on environmental-litigation costs was reaffirmed.