Cost protection lost where extensive cross examination was required due to shortcomings in applicants’ affidavits

Costs of proceedings – unsuccessful application for attachment and committal – applicants applied to have two directors of a waste management company committed to prison for alleged disobedience of court order – costs follow the event – applicants assert a right to costs protection pursuant to part 2 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 – s. 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 – planning status of a waste facility – proceedings brought by individuals living in the vicinity – directors not named in the proceedings – company named in the proceedings – director engaged legal representation - pleaded in originating notice of motion that the protective costs provisions apply – respondent company on notice from the outset of this – open to them to apply for an advanced ruling to determine this – Aarhus convention – proceedings should not be prohibitively expensive – respondents argue that costs protection determination should have been done prior to the hearing of the substantive application – not a condition precedent to the availability of costs protection – costs protection determination prior to the hearing of the substantive application is not a condition precedent to the availability of costs protection - costs protection is available to the contempt motion – brought within the existing enforcement proceedings – manner in which they conduct proceedings – litigation conduct – important not to confuse reasonableness with correctness – applicants should have requested statement for the purpose of section 53 of the Companies Act 2014 – not properly served on one of the directors – order did not bear an appropriate penal endorsement for the purpose of order 41. Rule 8 – deficiencies fatal to attachment and committal application but not serious enough to justify the withdrawal of costs protection - cross-examination of applicants required due to shortcomings in the affidavits – prolonged the hearing – in the interests of justice that the applicants be made liable for the additional costs incurred – costs order in favour of the company to be set off against the costs order made in favour of the applicants in respect of the substantive hearing – Court will measure the costs – sum in gross to be paid in lieu of adjudicated costs - €10,000 plus VAT.