Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment & ors [2007] IESC 60 (06 December 2007)

Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment & ors [2007] IESC 60 (06 December 2007)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by giving undue weight to public interest and general importance as determinative factors for awarding costs to an unsuccessful plaintiff. The normal rule that costs follow the event should apply unless special circumstances justify departure, which were not present in this case. The appeal against the High Court's costs order was allowed, and costs were awarded to the State.

Citation
[2007] IESC 60
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Dominic Dunne; Defendant/respondent: The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Defendant/respondent: Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs) / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Following Substantive Dismissal of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal (costs) allowed; High Court costs order set aside; costs awarded to State
Legal Topics
Costs, Public Interest Litigation, Discretion of Court in Costs, National Monuments, Judicial Review
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Administrative Law Costs Public Interest Litigation Discretion of Court in Costs National Monuments Judicial Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic Dunne

Plaintiff/appellant

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Defendant/respondent

Dun Laoghaire - Rathdown County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs) / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Following Substantive Dismissal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding costs to an unsuccessful plaintiff in public law litigation against public bodies
  2. 2 Whether public interest and general importance of issues justify departure from the normal rule that costs follow the event

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by giving undue weight to public interest and general importance as determinative factors for awarding costs to an unsuccessful plaintiff. The normal rule that costs follow the event should apply unless special circumstances justify departure, which were not present in this case. The appeal against the High Court's costs order was allowed, and costs were awarded to the State.

Court Disposition

Appeal (costs) allowed; High Court costs order set aside; costs awarded to State

Orders

  • Order for costs in favour of plaintiff in High Court set aside
  • Costs of High Court proceedings awarded to State