Court rules that Luas couple must pay some of AG legal costs
A South Dublin couple who lost their High Court claim that they were exposed to very serious and aggravating noise from the Luas, which runs close to their home will have to pay some of the Attorney General's legal costs.
Last March Ms Justice Mary Laffoy dismissed the claims by Paula and Vincent Smyth, of Cambridge Terrace, Leeson Park, Dublin, after finding they had not established a "nuisance" under the relevant laws.
The couple's home is close to the LUAS green line and they had sued the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) and Veolia Transport Ireland Ltd, operator of the Luas for the RPA. The Attorney General was a notice party in the case.
Today Ms Justice Laffoy ruled that the Smyths must pay the AG's legal costs for five of the 16 days that the matter was before the courts. Previously the court was informed that by agreement the couple, Veolia and the RPA would pay their own legal costs.
Seamus Woulfe SC had argued that no order be made in relation to the AG's costs or in the alternative that the costs be limited. The AG had sought its costs.
Despite bringing some clarity to the law the judge said there were no special circumstances where she could depart from the normal rule where the losing party in a civil action must pays the legal costs.
The Smyths, the Judge said, had raised a constitutional issue in their case, relating to the effect on their home caused by the operation of the Luas, which required the presence of the AG.
That issue, along with the rest of the Smyth's claim, was dismissed in last March's judgment.
However as the AG had only made legal submissions, and questioned just one witness during the action, and was not required for the entire hearing the Judge ruled that the AG was entitled to legal costs for five out of the 16 days that the matter was before the courts.
The couple had sought injunctions restraining the defendants operating the Luas in a manner that causes a noise nuisance and requiring them to erect an appropriate barrier to reduce the noise. They also sought damages.
The Smyths had claimed their enjoyment of their home was "severely undermined and compromised" due to noise from the Luas since it began operating in July 2004.
During the planning stages of the Luas, the Smyths said they believed special noise reduction screens would be erected at certain sensitive locations where the Luas would pass.
They claimed they were unable to enjoy their garden or hold a conversation when a tram passed and were unable to sleep properly. Their bedroom faced onto the Luas embankment and they regularly slept with the windows shut and with ear plugs.
In denying the claims, the defendants said the Luas was operated in accordance with the terms of the Transport Light Rail Acts of 1996 and 2001 which did not provide, as a matter of law, for the nuisance alleged.
Ms Justice Laffoy in ruling against the couple held that by operating within the noise levels predicted in an Environmental Impact Statement which accompanied the application to construct the Green Line, the RPA was not infringing the comfortable and healthy enjoyment of the plaintiffs home.
The Judge also said that despite the fact the RPA had failed to comply with a requirement to monitor day and nighttime noise levels, there were no circumstances in which the Smyths could be entitled to the reliefs sought.
