Appeal dismissed as abuse of process; costs awarded to respondent for misapplying Heather Hill precedent.
Irlande (IE)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, ruling the proceedings constituted an abuse of process by attempting to revisit final orders rather than reviewing the Legal Costs Adjudicator's determination. The appellant argued that a costs order was unjust due to the Supreme Court's Heather Hill judgment, but the court found this precedent irrelevant to the current statutory review mechanism. Consequently, the court awarded costs to the second respondent, Dundrum Retail Limited Partnership, for the successful appeal.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAs.161(5) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015; s.161 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015: Proceedings seeking to revisit final orders under a costs review mechanism constitute an abuse of process and are misconceived.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IAJurisprudence citée
Généré par l'IATexte complet
THE COURT OF APPEAL
APPROVED
NO REDACTIONS NEEDED
Record Number: 2024/08
High Court Record Number: 2018/620JR
Neutral Citation Number [2025] IECA 95
Whelan J. Noonan J. Pilkington J.
BETWEEN/
DAVID COOPER
APPLICANT/
APPELLANT
-AND-
AN BORD PLEANÁLA
DEFENDANT/
RESPONDENT
-AND-
DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL AND DUNDRUM
RETAIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTICE PARTIES/
RESPONDENTS
COSTS RULING of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 7th day of May, 2025
1. The principal judgment in these proceedings was delivered on 24th October 2024 ([2024] IECA 253). The appellant’s appeal was dismissed for the reasons set out in the judgment. The appeal was brought against a review by the High Court of a determination of the Legal Costs Adjudicator pursuant to s.161(5) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. However rather than dealing with the issue of the adjudication of costs, the appellant sought to revisit earlier final orders and judgments in the judicial review proceedings in respect of which the costs order that the appellant sought to have reviewed were made.
2. As such, this Court held that the appeal and entire proceedings were entirely misconceived and constituted an abuse of process. The fundamental contention of the appellant throughout has been that an order for costs should not have been made against him in the original judicial review proceedings because of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Heather Hill Management Co. CLG. and McGoldrick v. An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESC 43.
3. In the principal judgment herein, I indicated a provisional view that the second respondent, Dundrum Retail Limited Partnership, having been entirely successful, should be entitled to its costs of the appeal, but the Court gave liberty to the appellant to contend for an alternative order by written submission. Such a submission has been made by the appellant and answered by the second respondent.
4. Fundamentally, the appellant again reagitates his contention that no order as to costs should be made against him in this appeal because the judgment in Heather Hill applies. As the second respondent points out, that is yet another misconception by the appellant. The judgment in Heather Hill has no bearing on this case as it has no relevance to an application to the High Court for a review pursuant to s.161 of the 2015 Act. Indeed, as the respondent points out, Heather Hill equally had no application to the original proceedings which were concerned solely with the procedural issue of whether or not the appellant had submitted a valid appeal to An Bord Pleanála.
5. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the provisional costs order indicated in the principal judgment is appropriate and would accordingly award the costs of this appeal to the second respondent.
6. As this ruling is delivered electronically, Whelan and Pilkington JJ. have authorised me to now record their agreement with it.