Lyons & Anor v McDonagh & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 471 (31 July 2024)

Lyons & Anor v McDonagh & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 471 (31 July 2024)

The applicants are entitled to recover two-thirds of their costs up to 29 February 2024, as their pursuit of the first issue was reasonable and vindicated by the respondents' need to regularise unauthorised development. However, because the applicants pursued and then withdrew a second issue (the internal door) without sufficient justification, their recoverable costs are discounted by one-third. From 7 March 2024 onwards, the respondents are liable for all of the applicants' costs, as the respondents unreasonably pursued the irrelevant 'date of knowledge' issue, causing unnecessary additional costs.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 471
Parties
Applicant: John Lyons; Applicant: Mary Lyons; Respondent: Patrick McDonagh; Respondent: Supermac's Ireland Ltd; Respondent: Funworld (Ireland) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Circuit Appeal / Costs Ruling Following Withdrawal of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal withdrawn; proceedings struck out; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Planning Injunctions, Retention Planning Permission, Costs in Moot Proceedings, Enforcement Proceedings, Exempted Development
Planning Law Civil Procedure Planning Injunctions Retention Planning Permission Costs in Moot Proceedings Enforcement Proceedings Exempted Development

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lyons

Applicant

Mary Lyons

Applicant

Patrick McDonagh

Respondent

Supermac's Ireland Ltd

Respondent

Funworld (Ireland) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Circuit Appeal / Costs Ruling Following Withdrawal of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which costs regime applies to planning enforcement proceedings withdrawn after grant of retention permission?
  2. 2 How should costs be allocated where proceedings are rendered moot by unilateral act of a party?
  3. 3 Does the applicants' knowledge of planning authority correspondence affect costs?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants are entitled to recover two-thirds of their costs up to 29 February 2024, as their pursuit of the first issue was reasonable and vindicated by the respondents' need to regularise unauthorised development. However, because the applicants pursued and then withdrew a second issue (the internal door) without sufficient justification, their recoverable costs are discounted by one-third. From 7 March 2024 onwards, the respondents are liable for all of the applicants' costs, as the respondents unreasonably pursued the irrelevant 'date of knowledge' issue, causing unnecessary additional costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal withdrawn; proceedings struck out; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Applicants to recover two-thirds of their costs up to 29 February 2024, including brief fee and instructions fee for the appeal hearing.
  • Applicants to recover all costs from 7 March 2024 onwards, including costs of non-party discovery against the planning authority.