[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Short & Ors v. Ireland & Ors [2004] IEHC 235 (23 June 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2004/235.html Cite as: [2004] IEHC 235

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation No: [2004] IEHC 235

HC 235/04

THE HIGH COURT

Record Number: 1994 No. 1751P

Between:

Constance Short, Mary Kavanagh, Mark Deary and Olann Herr

Plaintiffs

And

Ireland, The Attorney General and British Nuclear Fuels Plc.

Defendants

Judgment of Mr Justice Michael Peart related to Costs delivered the 23rd June

2004:

For decision is whether, given my findings in relation to the first section of the hearing of this case, as directed by the President of the High Court, I should at this point in time, make an order for costs related to that first section.

The plaintiffs submit that even though they failed on the issues determined in this section I should nevertheless award them their costs against BNFL, the third named defendants, and this submission is made on the basis that the plaintiffs are in effect public interest plaintiffs. Dr Forde on their behalf has referred the Court to a number of authorities which support his submission that public interest plaintiffs, although losing an action, have been and can be awarded their costs.

Donal O'Donnell SC, on behalf of BNFL, has submitted that the question of costs should follow the event, and has indicated to the Court that in the event that the Court awarded BNFL its costs of the section of the case which I have determined, it would be content to have a stay placed on that order pending the disposal of all aspects of the case, and in that way, he submits, the plaintiffs cannot be prejudiced.

This litigation is multi-faceted, and has the potential to be protracted in length before finality is reached. For this reason, no doubt, the President of the High Court has directed that the case be heard in a number of distinct sections, the first of which I have concluded, and which related to whether this Court had any jurisdiction to hear and determine what are essentially regulatory claims in respect of a United Kingdom administrative body. I have decided that it does not. There are however also some purely tortious claims against the third named defendant yet to be determined, and as far as I recall some other claims against the first and second named defendants, each being dealt with in discreet segments.

Unlike the more usual situation where the Court directs a preliminary issue to be tried ahead of the main action, in circumstances where its disposal has the capacity to put an end to the entire proceedings, the situation in the present case is simply that the President of the High Court has decided that, for reasons of procedural convenience or good case management, the case could be divided into distinct parts, each of which can be determined in isolation to the others. There is not, so far as I am aware, a situation where any one of those segments can avoid the necessity for all segments to be heard.

The nature of the costs order which should be made in respect of the segment of this case which I have determined, is one which in my view is best left to await the final outcome of the proceedings as a whole. It is a matter the resolution of which could be affected, either one way or the other, by the eventual outcome of the entire proceedings. For example, if the plaintiffs were to succeed substantially against any of the defendants, the Court would certainly have the capacity to decide that simply because the issues for determination were divided into distinct segments, ought not to result in a situation where the costs should not follow that event, namely success overall by the plaintiffs. In other words, the plaintiffs ought not to be disadvantaged, bearing in mind their success in recovering damages at the end of the day, or obtaining other reliefs sought, simply because the Court directed the case to be dealt with on a piecemeal basis. Equally, the Court's attitude to the plaintiffs' submission that even in defeat they ought to be awarded their costs, could be affected by any view the Court might form in relation to the proceedings as a whole after the final determination of all segments thereof. In this way, the Court will be in a better position to exercise its undoubted discretion in the matter of costs, when it has within its knowledge the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.

In these particular and unusual circumstances, I have decided that the most appropriate order is that the costs to date should be reserved until the hearing of all segments of the proceedings have been concluded before the High Court.

Michael Peart 23/6/2004