The Supreme Court yesterday reserved judgment on the question of who will pay the costs, estimated at up to £2 million, of an unsuccessful challenge by Lancefort Ltd, a company of conservationists, to a hotel and office development in central Dublin.
Mr Colm MacEochaidh, for Lancefort, said yesterday it was "a travesty" that the Supreme Court's finding that Lancefort had no locus standi meant an important point of European law relating to environmental impact assessments could not be litigated. He also argued that two recent European Court decisions favoured Lancefort's case and showed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the case was "a nullity".
Lancefort, of Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin, is seeking the full costs of its unsuccessful action against An Bord Pleanala and the State regarding the development by Treasury Holdings Ltd, Lower Grand Canal Street, Dublin, at a site bounded by College Street, Westmoreland Street and Fleet Street.
Planning permission was granted by the board in December 1996, and Lancefort initiated legal proceedings in 1997 which Treasury claims has cost the company "millions".
In July last year the Supreme Court dismissed Lancefort's appeal against the High Court's rejection of its challenge to the development. The court found Lancefort did not have locus standi to mount the challenge. Mrs Justice Denham disagreed.
Lancefort had claimed the board should have assessed whether an Environmental Impact Assessment of the development was necessary. In the majority Supreme Court judgment, Mr Justice Keane said that, because the court found Lancefort did not have locus standi, the court did not have to address the issue of whether the board was required to assess whether an EIA was required.
The Supreme Court adjourned the issue of costs. The High Court had ordered that Lancefort pay the legal costs incurred by the developer, estimated at more than £300,000.
The costs application opened in July and was adjourned to yesterday. Ms Nuala Butler, for Bord Pleanala, said it had originally decided not to apply for its Supreme Court costs against Lancefort but because Lancefort had applied for costs against the board, that position had changed.
Mr Rory Brady SC, for Treasury Holdings, said his clients had also intended not to seek the costs of the Supreme Court hearing against Lancefort until they learned Lancefort was applying for its costs against them. They were now seeking High Court and Supreme Court costs.