Supreme Court dismisses appeal where Trinity College planning permission is upheld and costs enforcement stands.
Irland (IE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against two High Court orders striking out his action and refusing an injunction against cost enforcement. The appellant argued for relief regarding costs awarded to Trinity College in a related judicial review case concerning planning permission for Trinity Hall. The court ruled that since the underlying planning permission challenge was already rejected, there was no legal basis to restrain the respondent from pursuing those costs.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generierts. 10 of the Supreme Court Act 1970; s. 10 of the Supreme Court Act 1970: Where the underlying substantive claim is dismissed, an appeal challenging related interlocutory orders to restrain enforcement of costs must also fail.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Rechtsprechung
KI-generiertVolltext
THE SUPREME COURT
192/04
BETWEEN
JAMES KENNY
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
AND
AN BORD PLEANÁLA
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
Judgment delivered the 10th day of April 2008 by Fennelly J.
1. At the hearing of this appeal, the parties agreed that the appeal must necessarily fail, in the event that the appeal of the Provost,
Fellows and Scholars of the University of Dublin, that is Trinity College, in the case in which the Court has given judgment this
morning succeeds. I will call that the Trinity case. That event has, in fact occurred.
2. This appeal is taken against two related orders of the High Court (O’Donovan J) dated 29th March, 2004. Firstly, the High Court
made an order striking out the appellant’s action against the respondent as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Secondly, it
made an order refusing the appellant’s application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent from seeking to enforce an
order for costs made in its favour in the Trinity case. Those costs were awarded by the High Court (McKechnie J). They relate to an
application by the appellant for leave to apply for judicial review of a planning permission granted to Trinity in respect of the
redevelopment of Trinity Hall.
3. The grounds for the appellant’s challenge to that planning permission have been treated extensively in the judgment which I have
delivered in the Trinity case. It suffices to say that the appellant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of a grant of
planning permission by a decision of the respondent was refused. This Court has dismissed the action (the Trinity case) in which the
appellant sought to reopen the decision of McKechnie J. There is no longer any ground for contesting the planning permission.
4. It follows that the High Court order dismissing the appellant’s action against the respondent in the present action must stand.
There is no basis in law for restraining the respondent from pursuing the costs awarded to it in the Trinity case. The appeal must,
therefore, be dismissed and the orders of the High Court affirmed.