Court of Appeal grants further relief to an appellant who was already successful in judicial review proceedings concerning rights and ownership of a roadway, and makes a partial costs order against him, where: (a) the trial judge had correctly identified the clearest basis upon which the appellant was entitled to relief, and proceeded to grant same, but hadn't engaged substantively with or refuted the remaining grounds; and (b) the appellant hadn't accepted a concession from the respondent which would have avoided the need for a hearing, and thus lowered costs.
Court of Appeal - judicial review - appeal jurisdiction - costs of legal proceedings - Road Traffic Act, 1993 - section 11 - whether occupants can use roadway to access public road - 23rd March, 2021 - County Council announced intention to declare road public - appellant asserted public right of way must exist before road taken in charge - 1st September, 2021 - meeting where it was held the road is public - 22nd November, 2021 - appellant commences judicial review proceedings - 17 grounds of relief - case heard 17th October, 2022 - first ground argued it was wrong of Judge to say decision to declare the road public was not unlawful - trial judge was identifying the clearest basis upon which appellant entitled to relief - proceeded to grant that relief - did not substantially engage with or refute other grounds - second ground argued should have based decision on three further grounds - Constitution Article 28.2 not argued in court - Order amended - appellant didn't accept concession and proceeded to make judicial review application - respondent liable for costs up to 19th May, 2022 - the respondent thereafter.