Dunne -v- Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government & ors.

The issue was whether a provision of the National Monuments Act 2004 was unconstitutional and also in breach of European law. The proceedings focused on the construction of part of a motorway through Carrickmines Castle, an area of archaeological note. Although the appellant lost his case in the High Court, the learned High Court Judge awarded him costs against the first named respondent notwithstanding the normal rule that the losing party should pay the costs of the proceedings. Where the High Court had awarded the unsuccessful Plaintiff costs against the Defendant on the ground that it had a considerable public interest element the Supreme Court reversed this decision on appeal, finding that the legal issues raised were not of special and general importance. It held that the ordinary rules should apply to the costs of the High Court proceedings and that costs should follow the event. No circumstances arose to justify departure from this rule. Although the Appellant had no private interest in the matter, the issues raised were not of special and general importance. The subject matter may have been of general public importance, however the legal issues were not. One aspect worth noting is that the Supreme Court found that whilst the general concepts of the environment and public monuments were of public importance, the actual legal issues raised in relation to them were not. This reasoning allows for the possibility that where a matter of public interest raises complex or novel legal issues, it may be a relevant factor to warrant disapplying the usual cost rules. However this will not necessarily be the case. The Supreme Court is reluctant to provide prescriptive rules or even guidance as to when it might be appropriate to depart from the usual cost rules.