A Co Dublin woman is facing a bill for legal costs estimated at more than £400,000 after she unsuccessfully challenged the granting of permission for field trials of genetically engineered sugar beet in Co Carlow.
The High Court yesterday awarded costs against Ms Clare Watson, of Foster Avenue, Mount Merrion, Dublin, who is a member of the organisation Genetic Concern, in her action against the Environmental Protection Agency and Monsanto plc.
Afterwards, Ms Watson said she was considering an appeal to the Supreme Court in the case. She was very disappointed with the costs decision, which she described as unfair as she had taken the case on a public issue. "It was the only route for a member of the public," she said.
Ms Watson, who works in marketing with a Galway company, said she was unable to pay such costs herself. She added that Genetic Concern had no money and operated on a shoestring.
In a reserved judgment delivered earlier this month, Mr Justice O'Sullivan rejected all grounds of the challenge by Ms Watson to the Environmental Protection Agency's decision of May 1st, 1997, granting permission to Monsanto for field trials of genetically modified sugar beet on lands owned by Teagasc at Oak Park, Co Carlow.
Monsanto is involved with another company, Novartis, in the development of a sugar beet plant which is tolerant of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's weed-killer, Roundup. The field trials are being conducted to assess the effect of Roundup on the glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet.
The Co Carlow trials were the first such permitted in Ireland. Earlier this year the EPA also granted consents for four more crop trials in Cos Cork, Meath and Wexford, and a legal challenge to those was dependent on the outcome of Ms Watson's action.
The issue of legal costs of the hearing, which ran for more than 10 days, came before the judge yesterday.
In his judgment Mr Justice O'Sullivan stressed he was not dealing with the merits or otherwise of genetic engineering but rather with legal matters regarding the processing of Monsanto's application by the EPA and Ms Watson's right to object to it.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for Ms Watson, asked the judge to exercise his discretion and make no order for costs. He said the case was of significant public importance involving an important area of new legislation which touched on the area of public health and was a legitimate matter of public concern.
The case was also the first to arise in relation to legislation dealing with the licensing of trials of genetically modified organisms, counsel submitted.
Mr Clarke also said Ms Watson was not motivated out of a sense of personal gain but out of a desire to see things done in a particular way.
Mr James Macken SC, for the EPA, and Ms Fidelma Macken SC, for Monsanto, both said they were instructed to apply for their costs.
Mr Macken said the issue in the case was not whether the particular legislation involved was right or wrong but whether a particular decision was taken in a certain way. He said the EPA had made full disclosure of the process by which it had arrived at its decision, and costs should follow the event. This was not a case where it was practice to depart from the usual order for costs.
Ms Macken said Ms Watson had claimed during the case that the legislation involved should be interpreted in a particular way, but she had made no attempt to join the Minister for the Environment to the proceedings. If she had done so, and turned the case into a legislative inquiry, then she might be in a position to argue against the costs order.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan said he had to feel constrained by precedent and the ordinary principles and would award costs against Ms Watson. He also made a formal order refusing all the orders sought by Ms Watson in the action.
