The High Court has deferred the issue of who should pay the estimated €1 million costs of one aspect of a legal battle by four Co Louth people aimed at closing the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria.
In April, Mr Justice Peart upheld a preliminary argument by British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL) that the Irish courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case. He adjourned a decision on who should pay the costs of that aspect of the proceedings.
The proceedings were initiated several years ago by Ms Constance Short, Ms Mary Kavanagh, Mr Mark Deery and Mr Olann Herr, all of Dundalk.
Yesterday, the judge said a number of other aspects of the case still had to be dealt with by the High Court and the most appropriate order at this stage was that the costs to date should be reserved until the hearing of all segments of the proceedings had been concluded by the High Court.
Meanwhile, the April judgment on the jurisdictional issue may yet be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice Peart said his findings in April related to the first section of the hearing of the case, as had been directed by the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan.
The plaintiffs had submitted that even though they failed on the issues in that section, they should nevertheless be awarded their costs against British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), who together with Ireland and the Attorney General are defendants.
That submission was made on the basis that the plaintiffs were, in effect, "public-interest plaintiffs".
BNFL had argued against the plaintiffs being awarded their costs.
The company also indicated that, if the court awarded the company its costs of the first section of the case, it would be content to have a stay placed on that order pending the disposal of all aspects of the proceedings.
Yesterday, the judge said the litigation was multi-faceted and had the potential to be protracted in length before finality was reached.
For that reason, no doubt, the High Court president had directed that the case be heard in a number of distinct sections, the first of which he had concluded.
The first section related to whether the court had any jurisdiction to hear and determine what were essentially regulatory claims in respect of a UK administrative body. He had decided it did not.
However, there were other claims against BNFL which had yet to be determined, as well as other claims against the State.
Any order on costs to date should await the final outcome of the proceedings as a whole, Mr Justice Peart said.