Hayes v Environmental Protection Agency & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 28 (24 January 2023)

Hayes v Environmental Protection Agency & Ors (Approved) [2023] IEHC 28 (24 January 2023)

The applicant's case was not of exceptional public importance, she lost on all grounds, and her conduct wasted court time and taxpayer resources. The privilege of costs protection imposes an added onus to litigate efficiently, which was not met. Therefore, the statutory threshold for awarding costs to a losing party under s. 50B(4) was not satisfied.

Citation
[2023] IEHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Michelle Hayes; Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency; Respondent: The Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Irish Cement Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs Application
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
Costs in Environmental Litigation, Protective Costs Orders, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Exceptional Public Importance, Efficient Use of Court Resources
Environmental Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs in Environmental Litigation Protective Costs Orders Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Exceptional Public Importance Efficient Use of Court Resources

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michelle Hayes

Applicant

Environmental Protection Agency

Respondent

The Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondent

Irish Cement Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a losing applicant in an environmental judicial review, protected from adverse costs, can be awarded her own legal costs under s. 50B(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct justified a departure from the general rule on costs protection
  3. 3 Whether the case was of exceptional public importance justifying a costs award to the losing party

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's case was not of exceptional public importance, she lost on all grounds, and her conduct wasted court time and taxpayer resources. The privilege of costs protection imposes an added onus to litigate efficiently, which was not met. Therefore, the statutory threshold for awarding costs to a losing party under s. 50B(4) was not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused

Orders

  • Ms. Hayes' application for her legal costs under s. 50B(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is denied.