A company of conservationists, Lancefort Ltd, has been ordered by the Supreme Court to pay part of the costs incurred by Treasury Holdings Ltd arising from legal proceedings over a proposed office and hotel development in Dublin.
Planning permission for the development was granted by An Bord Pleanala in December 1996 and Lancefort took proceedings in early 1997. The legal costs to date are estimated at £2 million but, following yesterday's Supreme Court decision, Lancefort is expecting to reduce its liability to less than £200,000.
Treasury Holdings, of Lower Grand Canal Street, Dublin, claims it has lost millions as a result of the legal challenge to its development at a site bounded by College Street, Westmoreland Street and Fleet Street.
Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld a High Court order directing Lancefort, of Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin, to pay the High Court costs incurred by Treasury Holdings in relation to Lancefort's unsuccessful challenge to the development.
The Supreme Court made no order for the costs of a High Court appeal by Lancefort and also made no order in relation to reserved costs. This means Lancefort will have to pay its own legal costs while its opponents - An Bord Pleanala and the State - will have to pay their High Court costs and the costs of the Supreme Court appeal on the substantive issue.
Dealing with the question of who should pay the costs of a separate Supreme Court hearing on the costs issue alone, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, ruled Lancefort should pay the costs of the board and Treasury Holdings. The Chief Justice was delivering the court's reserved judgment on the costs hearing during which Lancefort contended that, while it had lost its challenge, it should not have to pay any costs.
After delivering judgment, Mr Justice Hamilton refused an application by Mr Paul Callan SC, for Lancefort, to put a stay on the court's decision on costs pending the outcome of a possible appeal by Lancefort on the costs ruling to the European Court of Human Rights.
In July 1998, by a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court dismissed Lancefort's appeal against the High Court's rejection of its challenge to the development. The majority found Lancefort did not have locus standi to mount such a challenge, while Ms Justice Denham disagreed.
