Malone v GCHL & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 83 (04 February 2025)

Malone v GCHL & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 83 (04 February 2025)

The relief sought against the EPA had no jurisdictional basis and was bound to fail, but the applicant's conduct did not reach the threshold of unreasonable behaviour or frivolous/vexatious application under s.3(3) of the 2011 Act. The default scenario of no order as to costs applies, and no costs are awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 83
Parties
Applicant: David Malone; First Named Respondent: GCHL Limited; Second Named Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency; First Named Notice Party: Kildare County Council; Second Named Notice Party: Balyna Environmental Action Group
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Enforcement Action (planning and Waste Management) / Costs Ruling Following Principal Judgment
Outcome
No order as to costs; Agency's application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
Costs in Environmental Litigation, Aarhus Convention Implementation, Statutory Enforcement Under Planning and Development Act 2000, Waste Management Act 1996, Jurisdictional Basis for Relief, Interpretative Obligation Under EU Law
Environmental Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs in Environmental Litigation Aarhus Convention Implementation Statutory Enforcement Under Planning and Development Act 2000 Waste Management Act 1996 Jurisdictional Basis for Relief +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Malone

Applicant

GCHL Limited

First Named Respondent

Environmental Protection Agency

Second Named Respondent

Kildare County Council

First Named Notice Party

Balyna Environmental Action Group

Second Named Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Statutory Enforcement Action (planning and Waste Management) / Costs Ruling Following Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded against applicant following unsuccessful relief against EPA
  2. 2 Application of default no-costs rule under Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011
  3. 3 Interpretative obligation to ensure costs are not prohibitively expensive under Aarhus Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The relief sought against the EPA had no jurisdictional basis and was bound to fail, but the applicant's conduct did not reach the threshold of unreasonable behaviour or frivolous/vexatious application under s.3(3) of the 2011 Act. The default scenario of no order as to costs applies, and no costs are awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; Agency's application for costs refused.

Orders

  • No order as to costs in relation to the Agency’s application regarding paragraph 5 of the Notice of Motion dated 30 March 2023.