Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Costs determined where proceedings were dismissed as misconceived and constituting abuse of process
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal, having previously dismissed the appellant's appeal, which challenged the High Court's review of a Legal Costs Adjudicator's determination, holds that the provisional costs order indicated in the principal judgment is appropriate, and accordingly award the costs of this appeal to the second respondent. The appellant's attempt to revisit final orders from earlier judicial review proceedings had been deemed entirely misconceived and an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal affirmed the provisional view that the second respondent, a retail partnership, should be awarded costs for the appeal, rejecting the appellant's contention that the Supreme Court's judgment in a previous unrelated case should influence the costs decision.
Court of Appeal, abuse of process, legal costs adjudication, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, costs order, judicial review, Supreme Court precedent, Dundrum Retail Limited Partnership, Heather Hill Management Co. CLG. v. An Bord Pleanála, s.161(5) review, procedural issue, An Bord Pleanála appeal validity.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
