Practice - Costs - Costs awarded against appellants at interlocutory stage of injunction application - Appellant found to have acted bona fide in bringing interim application - Interlocutory application refused - Whether Court entitled to award costs against appellant even though found to have acted bona fide.
The Supreme Court (Mr Justice Barrington, Mr Justice Murphy, and Mr Justice Barron ); judgment delivered (ex tempore) 17 July 1998.
The High Court has a wide discretion in relation to costs and was perfectly entitled to award costs against the appellant despite also finding that it had acted bona fide in bringing the application for the interim injunction. Of particular relevance in this case was the fact that the applicant had not notified the developer before bringing the application for the interim injunction.
The Supreme Court so held in refusing the appellant's appeal.
Paul Callan SC, Mary Finlay SC and Colm MacEochaidh BL for the appellant; Rory Brady SC, Paul Sreenan SC and Denis McDonald BL for the respondent.
Mr Justice Barrington said that this case represented a battle between the appellant and the respondent, characterised by extreme distrust on both sides, in relation to a major proposed development in Westmoreland Street in Dublin. The appellant arrived at the view that the respondent was going to commence this development prior to the final determination of judicial review proceedings in relation thereto and applied for an interim injunction to prevent such commencement. The appellant did not contact the respondent before bringing the application for the interim injunction.
When the interlocutory proceedings came on, Mr Justice Quirke heard affidavit evidence and argument from both sides. He came to the conclusion that while the appellant had acted bona fide in bringing the application for the interim injunction he was satisfied that there was in fact no intention on the part of the respondent to commence the development prior to the determination of the judicial review proceedings. Accordingly he found there was no necessity for an interlocutory or permanent injunction and refused the application of the present appellants, awarding costs against them.
Mr Justice Barrington said that it was of some significance that the present appellant did not notify the respondent before bringing the application for the interim injunction. Despite the fact that the High Court found that the appellant genuinely believed that a breach of planning law was about to be committed the court had a wide discretion in relation to costs and was perfectly entitled to award them against the appellant in this case.
Solicitors: David Soden (Dublin) for the appellant; Arthur Cox & Co (Dublin) for the respondent.