Three members of Wicklow County Council are facing a substantial legal bill arising from an unsuccessful challenge to a decision by the Wicklow county manager to grant planning permission for the conversion of a milking parlour for use as a pet crematorium.
The High Court decision upholding the manager's permission of July 13th, 2000, for the crematorium premises at Oghill, Redcross, was given early last year. But the question of who should pay the costs - which could run to hundreds of thousands of euro - then became the subject of a bitter row among councillors.
In his reserved judgment yesterday on the costs issue, Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said he was satisfied that those liable for the costs of the action against the manager, and who had represented the interests of the council, were Cllr Nicky Kelly, formerly Independent but now of the Labour Party; Cllr Pat Doran of Fianna Fáil; and Cllr Tommy Cullen, a former member of Labour.
The judge said he would make no costs order against Cllr Deirdre De Burca of the Green Party, notwithstanding her apparent support for the position adopted by Cllr Kelly.
The judge said that, in making his order, he was conscious that the three members who must now pay the costs might have believed they had the support of other members of the council.
An emotional Mr Kelly told the judge he would appeal the decision. If the case relating to the incinerator had been won, other councillors would be claiming credit, he said.
The people who tried to serve the community were the ones who were now going to pay the price, he added.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Ó Caoimh held that the fact that the entitlement to take the legal proceedings was not apparently discussed by the other councillors could not be construed as an acquiescence on their part to the legal proceedings being taken such as to make those other members amenable to costs.
He said it was clear the proceedings instituted in the name of Wicklow County Council were at no time authorised by members of the council and in fact were commenced on the instructions of three members who did not have authority from other members to institute them.
A resolution of August 28th, 2000, could not be construed as authorising the proceedings, he held.
The judge said he accepted the point made by Cllr Sylvester Bourke and other members that the only authority from the council that existed was to seek legal advice. That advice was obtained.
While he held that Cllrs Kelly, Doran and Cullen acted without authority in instituting the proceedings, the judge was prepared to accept they may have acted in the bona-fide belief that they had authority to institute them. It was not clear what advice had been given to them in that regard.
He said the fact that constituents of council members may have been concerned about the proposed development of a pet crematorium was irrelevant to the present application to the court.