Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment & ors
Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment & ors
	Coat of arms of Ireland
Court	Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case name	Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment & ors
Decided	6 December 2007
Citation(s)	[2007] IESC 60
Case opinions
	If, in the special circumstances of a case, the interests of justice require that it should do so, the Supreme Court has discretion to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event and are awarded against the unsuccessful party.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Murray C.J., Denham J., Hardiman J., Geoghegan J., Kearns J.
Case opinions
Decision by	Murray C.J.
Keywords
	Order as to Costs; EU Law; Costs follow event; Constitution ; Constitution of Ireland ;

Last updated January 04, 2023

Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775,^[1] is an Irish Supreme Court case concerning costs in public interest challenges.^[2] The Court allowed an appeal against the order for costs made in the High Court and also granted costs against the appellant for the unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court.^[3]

Background

This case concerned the costs in relation to an action taken in relation to the Carrickmines works on the southeastern route of the M50 motorway in Dublin, Ireland. It had been argued that Section 8 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004,^[4] which introduced a special provision in relation to completing the M50 at Carrickmines Castle, was unconstitutional and that the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, contravened EU Directives.

Decision of the High Court

Although Mr. Dunne lost his case in the High Court, the Court awarded him costs notwithstanding the normal rule that the losing party should pay the costs of the proceedings.^[5]^[2]

In the High Court, Laffoy J held that the court's discretion to depart from the normal rule was governed by two principles:

that the person bringing the case was "acting in the public interest in a matter which involved no private personal advantage"; and
that the issues raised by the proceedings are of "sufficient general public importance to warrant an order for costs being made" in his/her favour.^[5]

Mr. Dunne appealed the decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The Minister for the Environment also appealed against the High Court Order awarding costs of the High Court proceedings to Mr. Dunne. Mr. Dunne in contrast sought to uphold the order of the High Court awarding him costs and, as regards the appeal to Supreme Court, requested that the Supreme Court exercise its discretion by either (1) "awarding him his costs of the appeal" or; (2) "making no [o]rder as to costs".^[3]

Holding of the Supreme Court

Costs in relation to the High Court Action

This costs order made by the High Court was overruled by the Supreme Court. It was the view of the Supreme Court that, in the context of this case, the ordinary rule should apply to the costs of the High Court proceedings. As a result, costs should follow the event and that costs are awarded against the unsuccessful party. The Supreme Court concluded that High Court had given “undue weight” to the two principles referred to above so as to treat them as “determining” factors.^[2]^[3] The Supreme Court noted that the rule that costs follow the event had an “obvious equitable basis”^[3] although it did also note the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction to depart from this rule if, “in the special circumstances of a case, the interests of justice require that it should do so.”^[3] The Supreme Court declined to list what those special circumstances might be and instead noted that they should be determined on a case by case basis.^[2]

The Court therefore allowed the appeal against the order for costs made in favour of the Mr. Dunne in the High Court. It substituted an order awarding the costs of the High Court proceedings to the Minister for the Environment (on behalf of the Irish State).^[3]

Costs of the Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found that costs should follow the event where there are no circumstances arising in the appeal that would justify departure from the normal rule. As the Court felt there was no such circumstances in this case, Mr. Dunne was ordered to pay the costs associated with his unsuccessful appeal.

As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in this case, Mr Dunne faced costs of approximately EUR500,000.^[6]

Related Research Articles

Carrickmines Castle is an archaeological site in Carrickmines, County Dublin, in eastern Ireland. The castle was built in the Middle Ages to protect the English-ruled Pale around Dublin. The mostly subsurface ruins lay in the path of the M50 Motorway, completed in 2005. Sections of the medieval walls and some sections of the castle's defensive structures were preserved within or under M50 roundabouts.

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny, [2016] IESC 9, [2016] 2 IR 283 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court confirmed the Irish courts’ jurisdiction to strike out (dismiss) weak cases—those it considered “bound to fail."

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne, [2015] IESC 46, [2016] 1 IR 92, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court clarified the impact of a lender failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2010 on that lender's right to obtain an order of possession of mortgaged property.

Tracey, T/A Engineering Design & Management v Burton, [2016] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court considered the Irish courts' ability to limit the right of access to the courts and, in extreme cases, to dismiss proceedings.

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

Gilroy v Flynn [2004] IESC 98; [2005] 1 ILRM 290, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court made it clear that excessive delays in the delivery of a statement of claim were unacceptable and could justify dismissing a case. While the Court allowed the appeal against the High Court central to this case to proceed, it effectively reversed the previous "assumption that even grave delay will not lead to the dismissal of an action" even where the fault of the delay lay with a legal adviser rather than the plaintiff.

The Health (amendment) Bill 2004,[2005] IESC 7 was an Irish Supreme Court case where a bill containing amendments to The Health Act of 1970 was brought before the supreme court after issues arose as to whether the provisions of the Bill were constitutional. The Court found that the bill was unconstitutional. The court ruled that patients were entitled to recover unlawful charges that they had paid because a person's rights to recover property are protected by the constitution

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which it was decided that the earliest opportunity to apply for a review of a decision made by the court arises within the three-month period after the decision is made, and that courts have no power to extend that time. The Court held that a key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.

De Róiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.

H v H,[2015] IESC 85, also known as JMH v KH, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the husband was found to have vexatiously abused the court process by repeatedly pursuing legal action against his former wife. An Isaac Wunder order was made by the court against the husband which states that any legal proceedings against his wife and children will be halted. However, the court did not suspend all legal action from the husband; rather it ruled that further legal action would require a decision by a relevant court. This decision is significant because the Court established guidelines for when common law principles could be reinterpreted.

Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors[2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

Wansboro v. DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65, was a Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister of Justice to assess the potential financial strain that a refugee's dependents would place on the State while deciding on an application for entry.

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v. Minister for Public Enterprise, Ireland, [2017] IESC 27; was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that third party funding to support a plaintiff's legal costs and disbursements is unlawful.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman[2009] IESC 38; [2009] 2 ILRM 363; [2009] 3 IR 699 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the inherent jurisdiction of the court with respect of a solicitor's misconduct. The court also considered the remedies available where a solicitor is in breach of a solicitor's undertaking.

References

↑ Ireland, Courts Service of. "Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment & ors". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 23 December 2019.
1 2 3 4 Comerford, Phyllis (2009). "Access to Justice and Costs in Environmental Judicial Review". Dublin University Law Journal. 31 (1): 66–69 – via Westlaw.ie.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775
↑ Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 23 December 2019.
1 2 Dunne v The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Others (No 1) [2004] IEHC 304.
↑ “Supreme Court overturns M50 costs award” Irish Times 7 December 2007.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Ireland, Courts Service of. "Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment & ors". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 23 December 2019.

[:0-2] 1 2 3 4 Comerford, Phyllis (2009). "Access to Justice and Costs in Environmental Judicial Review". Dublin University Law Journal. 31 (1): 66–69 – via Westlaw.ie.

[:1-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dunne v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, [2007] IESC 60; [2008] 2 IR 775

[4] Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 23 December 2019.

[:2-5] 1 2 Dunne v The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Others (No 1) [2004] IEHC 304.

[6] “Supreme Court overturns M50 costs award” Irish Times 7 December 2007.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]