High Court: (1) grants a farmer leave to discontinue his judicial review proceedings challenging the designation of his bog lands as a special area of conservation, on the grounds that the proceedings had become moot following the government’s decision to de-designate his lands; and (2) makes no order as to costs on the grounds that neither party was directly responsible for the “event”.
Judicial review – farmer brought an application to discontinue the proceedings – both parties seeking their costs – Minister for the Environment designated certain bog lands as a special area of conservation – including lands owned by the farmer – Minister advised the farmer to discontinue his use of bog lands - alleges that he has been deprived of the profit he was earning the bog lands and has suffered and continues to suffer considerable loss and damage arising from the nature and extent of the restriction placed on his bog lands - both parties were engaged in an arbitration as regards a claim for compensation – strategic plan for peatlands published – farmer’s land de-designated - proceedings are now moot - waste of valuable High Court time - rather than litigate a challenge to the lawfulness of the order, a common sense and practical approach is to resume the arbitration - plenary proceedings would not have been instituted if the plaintiff had known of the Minister’s intention to de-designate - approach the Superior Courts should take to proceedings which become moot during their currency - Court should lean in favour of making no order as to costs where proceedings have become moot outside the control of the parties, whereas the Court should lean in favour of making an order for costs where the proceedings become moot as a consequence of the action of one of the parties – farmer seeks to know when the de-designation will take effect – Minister argued that the proceedings are not moot - the intended de-designation of the plaintiff’s bog is not material to any of the declaratory reliefs sought – argued that the farmer has failed to discharge the burden of proving that they became moot due to the unilateral act of the defendants - whether the cause of action in these proceedings has become moot – Court of the view that the proceedings are moot – neither side was directly responsible for the ‘event’ which has rendered these proceedings moot - no order as to costs.