Neutral Citation No: [2005] IEHC 101
[2004 No. 785 JR]
BETWEEN
APPLICANT
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 11 th day of March, 2005
Having delivered judgment herein on 21 st January, 2005 I adjourned the matter so as to allow counsel to agree a draft declaration giving effect to the judgment. It has not been possible to reach such agreement.
Consequently I will now deal with the form of the order and certain ancillary matters regarding costs.
Prior to doing so I wish to point out the following matters.
The declaration to be encompassed in the judgment will therefore be that
The judgment and order will further recite:
The next point which arises for consideration relates to the submissions of Mr. Fitzsimons S.C. regarding the procedure then to be adopted by the respondents in relation to the applicant's own claim.
In order to facilitate matters Mr. Whelehan S.C., for the applicant, indicated that so far as his client was concerned the declaration at paragraph 1 was not intended to prevent the respondent from sending copies of notices required to be served under s. 30 of the Act to the claimant in addition to giving the said notice to the applicant's solicitor. As I indicated at the time I considered that this was a reasonable approach having regard to the background facts.
I have been asked to assist the respondent Board by giving an indication or ruling as the procedure to be adopted by the Board in other cases and particularly in relation to s. 30 of the Act.
In reaching the decision I have, I must have regard to the following factors
I would also draw attention to the fact that the general ambit of s. 30 of the Act was not specifically argued nor was it made the subject matter of submissions such as would have justified it being encompassed in any declaration herein.
It is only fair to state that I did observe on 1 st October, 2004 (p. 10 of transcript) that the course of action being suggested by the respondent seemed extremely reasonable, but it will be recollected that when the matter was mentioned on that date Mr. Whelehan SC specifically pointed out he was there to represent the interests of his client only. Counsel for the Law Society was not present on 1 st February, 2005.
I turn to the issue of costs.
It has been fairly accepted on all sides that the matter of costs was dealt with only in a general way on 1 st February, 2005. Mr. Fitzsimons S.C. has specifically drawn attention to a number of issues which he contends require specific determination.
It is not in dispute that the applicant is entitled to the costs of the application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings on 4 th October, 2004.
The applicant is also entitled to the costs of the substantive hearing of all three days.
I turn now to the various hearings which took place in the intervening period relating to the application to amend proceedings, the application for mandamus, and the application by the Law Society to be joined as amicus curiae or to intervene in the proceedings.
In making an order on these issues I am having regard to the following considerations:
Having regard to all these factors I take the view that each of the parties should bear their own costs in relation to those interlocutory applications. This I believe is in accordance with the spirit of my finding regarding the application for the Attorney General for his costs.
As I have indicated the applicant will have the costs of the application for leave and of the substantive hearing.
The applicant will have the costs of taking judgment on 25 th January, 2005.
With regard to the subsequent applications, each party will bear its own costs.