Summary of Ruling on Costs — Administrative Review (Planning & Environment)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for judicial review under the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Applicant obtained an order of certiorari quashing a decision of the planning Board (subsequently referred to in the proceedings as the Commission). The Applicant had advanced seven core grounds and was granted leave on each; at the substantive hearing it proceeded with five core grounds after two grounds (Core Grounds 6 and 7) were modularised. The State respondents were included as necessary parties because of those modularised grounds.

The court found that the Board/Commission had failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting its Inspector's conclusion that the developer's methodology was insufficient to assess daylight/sunlight impacts. The court granted the relief sought on that ground and did not determine the remaining issues because they were unnecessary to the outcome. A separate ruling concerned the appropriate order as to costs between the Applicant and the Commission.

The ruling on costs was delivered by the trial judge, whose written reasons address whether the Applicant should receive the full costs normally following the event or whether a reduction or apportionment was justified.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant was entitled to an order of certiorari in respect of the impugned planning decision on the ground that the Board/Commission failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the Inspector's finding about the insufficiency of the developer's daylight/sunlight assessment methodology.
2. Whether, and to what extent, the Applicant should be awarded costs against the Commission — specifically, whether the Applicant was "wholly successful" or "partly successful" and whether costs should be awarded under Order 103 Rule 39(1) RSC and sections 168–169 of the Law Society of Ireland (Solicitors' Remuneration) Act 2015 (LSRA 2015), or otherwise adjusted.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant relied on the general rule that costs follow the event and submitted it had succeeded in obtaining the relief sought (an order of certiorari), with no findings made against it on any grounds determined by the court.
• The Applicant argued that its position was distinguishable from the facts in the precedent relied upon by the Commission (the Supreme Court decision in Company A v. Defendant) where the Court declined to award costs in relation to an issue on which that applicant had failed on the most significant point.
• The Applicant sought an order for costs against the Commission, to include reserved costs and the costs of written submissions, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Commission's Arguments

• The Commission submitted that the Applicant was only "partly successful" and that any costs order should be limited to those costs that would have been incurred had the proceedings been confined to the single successful issue (Core Ground 4) on which the Applicant prevailed.
• The Commission relied on Order 103 Rule 39(1)(c) RSC as the appropriate mechanism for limiting costs where a party is partly successful, and argued that apportionment or reduction was warranted here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeded in discrete steps, grounded in the statutory framework and the Rules of Court relied upon by the parties:

1. The court identified the applicable procedural and statutory provisions: Order 103 Rule 39(1) RSC (as enacted by S.I. rules for Planning & Environment proceedings) and sections 168 and 169 LSRA 2015, noting those provisions regulate costs and provide that costs generally follow the event subject to the court's discretion and considerations such as conduct and reasonableness of issues pursued.
2. The court analysed the three scenarios in Order 103 Rule 39(1): unsuccessful at the substantive stage, wholly successful at the substantive stage, and partly successful at the substantive stage. The Commission urged application of sub-rule (1)(c) (partly successful).
3. The court examined whether the applicant should be treated as "entirely/wholly successful" for the purposes of section 169(1), observing that the statutory language contemplates a party who is "entirely successful in civil proceedings" and a party who "is not successful in those proceedings." The judge rejected an interpretation that equated "entirely successful" with success on every issue advanced rather than every issue determined by the Court.
4. The court considered the factual posture: no core ground was determined in favour of the Respondent; the Applicant succeeded on the sole ground the court considered necessary to decide the proceedings (Core Ground 4), and the remaining grounds were unnecessary to resolve the case.
5. The judge applied the "big issues" approach (as discussed in Group A v. The Ministry) and the guidance in Company A v. Defendant about avoiding an exhaustive 'balance sheet' of issues, concluding that apportionment is warranted only where there are significant issues the successful party lost that occupied substantial time and cost. That was not the case here.
6. The court also addressed temporal and practical considerations: Order 103 had come into operation shortly before judgment was reserved; the parties could not reasonably have adapted their conduct to the new rules. The court said this timing is a relevant factor militating against departing from the usual rule in the particular circumstances.
7. Weighing the statutory presumption (costs follow the event), the discretion afforded by sections 168–169 LSRA 2015 and Order 103, the factual pattern of the proceedings, and the conduct of the parties (including that the Commission chose to defend all grounds and no party sought further modularisation to save costs), the court concluded there was no basis to reduce or apportion the Applicant's costs.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court ordered that the Applicant be awarded its costs against the Commission, including reserved costs and the costs of written submissions, such costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The Commission is liable to pay the Applicant's costs of the judicial review proceedings (including reserved costs and written submissions), to be assessed if the parties cannot agree.
• Costs principle: The decision reiterates that the starting point is the presumption that costs follow the event under section 169, subject to the court's discretion which may consider whether it was reasonable to raise, pursue or contest particular issues, and whether there are significant issues lost by the overall winner that justify apportionment.
• Practical consequence: The judgment emphasises that respondents can minimise exposure by conceding issues they accept are unsustainable or by seeking modularisation, and that applicants risk being penalised for advancing excessive or unreasonable grounds — although in this case the court did not find that the Applicant's conduct justified departure from the usual rule.
• Precedential posture: The ruling applies the "big issues" approach to costs apportionment and distinguishes earlier authority where applicants lost on meaningful issues. The court did not, however, purport to make a novel or expansive rule beyond applying existing statutory provisions and authority to the facts before it.

Judge Farrell