Costs awarded against unsuccessful plaintiffs as challenge to accommodation centre struck out as moot

The High Court delivered a costs ruling in proceedings challenging plans for the development of an accommodation centre for international protection applicants. The court struck out the proceedings as moot after the government abandoned the proposed development. The court awarded the State and the local authority their costs of defending a failed interlocutory injunction against the plaintiffs, stating the application was 'unstateable' and critical of the manner in which the plaintiffs advanced their case. The developer was also awarded 60% of its interlocutory costs due to having given misleading information to the court. However, the court declined to order costs either for or against the plaintiffs for the remainder of the proceedings, particularly refusing an application by one lay litigant for all costs, on the basis that the government's abandonment of the project was not shown to be caused by the litigation, but more likely stemmed from broader political factors. The judgment also rejected immunity from costs for the plaintiffs due to hardship, while emphasising personal responsibility in litigation.