High Court, in judicial review proceedings seeking to restrain an unauthorised development which became moot, awards the applicant the costs of the proceedings up until the date the proceedings became moot, on the grounds that the primary precipitating factor giving rise to the dispute between the parties and the subsequent institution of the proceedings was the conduct of the respondent in erecting a wall in a hasty fashion without prior consultation and communication; and the court determines that costs should be adjudicated on the Circuit Court scale.
Planning and development – judicial review - costs of legal proceedings – applicants sought to restrain the respondent from carrying out an unauthorised development on his lands - a boundary wall – proceedings became moot - works commenced without prior consultation - retention permission – objections - land valuation – principles governing costs - Court enjoys a wide discretion not to award costs or to reduce the costs awarded where it disapproves of how the proceedings were conducted by the successful party - default position is that there should be no order as to costs where the proceedings have been rendered moot by the happening of an external and independent event or occurrence, over which the parties have no control - no evidence that the intention of the respondent to apply for retention was expressly communicated to the applicant in advance of the institution of the proceedings - the granting of the retention permission could not have come about without the application by, and participation of, the respondent in that process - to hold that the granting of permission in respect of the subject matter of the enforcement action thereby renders those proceedings moot would appear to be inconsistent with the express provisions of the legislation - not satisfied that the circumstances which arise in this case require the application of any general principle that each party should be required to bear its own costs on the grounds of mootness of proceedings - the necessity, timing or circumstances surrounding the commencement of proceedings - failure of the respondent to engage with the applicants in advance of the works, and the expedition with which such works took contributed significantly to the subsequent course of events and to the institution of these proceedings - failure of the applicants to disclose the course of dealings between the parties and communications with the local authority – applicants entitled to their costs up until the date the proceedings became moot - level of costs – adjudicated on Circuit Court scale