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.
Security for costs order refused where council is potentially contributing to plaintiff’s impecuniosity
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in the context of planning and development proceedings seeking injunctive relief regarding the development of a visitor centre at the Cliffs of Moher site, hears application by respondent County Council for an order granting it security for its costs in the proceedings, and refuses to grant such an order on the grounds that the council's continued operation of a temporary care park at the site significantly impacts on the applicant company's ability to operate a park and ride system (which is provided for in planning permission), thereby potentially contributing to the applicant's impecuniosity and representing a special circumstance enabling the court to depart from making such an order.
Planning and development - application for security for costs - substantive proceedings seeking order compelling respondents to comply with terms of planning permission for development of visitor centre at Cliffs of Moher - principles to be applied in such applications - prima facie defence - inability to pay moving party's costs if successful - whether specific circumstances exist which indicate the court ought not to make order - dispute over nature of car park at site - whether plaintiff's case statute-barred - whether a protective costs order in fact exists protecting the plaintiff in event it is unsuccessful at trial - Aarhus Convention - exception to general rule on costs - environmental issues may arise - special circumstance exists in that continued operation of temporary car park at site has a significant adverse impact on applicant's ability to operate park and ride system - application refused.
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.
