BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Supreme Court, on appeal by the appellants against that part of the judgment of this Court which deals with the respondents' right to a licence from the Commissioners of public works in Ireland (the Commissioners) to carry out a non-excavation survey of the site of the Armada wrecks at Streedagh and the evaluation of their claim against the State for a reward and recoupment of expenses relating to their discovery, has held:-

2. The judgment of O'Flaherty J. contains the following passages:

3. The judgment of Denham J. (which was the only other judgment of the Court) concludes with the following passage:-

4. In the light of the judgments of O'Flaherty and Denham JJ and findings by this Court which have not been challenged, the following conclusions emerge:-

5. Having regard to these conclusions it follows that, stripped of its complex legal trappings, at the end of a very long day the respondents' claim in this litigation has been essentially successful and, therefore, justice requires that they should be awarded their costs in the High Court. However, there are two subsidiary questions for consideration in that regard. First, whether such an order should include all costs of the proceedings. The respondents' claim was based on two alternate grounds; first, in Admiralty law as salvors in possession and, secondly, as finders of valuable historical artefacts which in law are the property of the State. It was patently reasonable to present their claim on that dual basis. In the event, they failed on the first ground, the legal arguments in relation to which having taken up several days at the trial. The finding of this Court has not been appealed. However, it is proper to take into account that as maritime archaeology is still in its early adolescence and has been significantly developed only in quite recent times in the wake of modern electronic technology, there is a dearth of judicial precedents in the common law world, and on that particular issue the action proceeded in largely uncharted waters. It is hoped that the cartography which has now emerged will be regarded as an acceptable development of maritime law in that area.

6. There have been many instances over the years where the courts have granted costs to unsuccessful litigants - particularly against the State - where important new issues of law of general interest have arisen and have given rise to definitive judgments. [See, for example, the judgments of the Supreme Court and a divisional court of the High Court in Hanafin -v- The Minister for the Environment and Others delivered on 7th February, 1996 and 1st March, 1996 respectively (unreported) in which both courts unanimously dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the result of the recent constitutional referendum on divorce was unlawful and should be set aside, but, nonetheless, awarded him his costs in both courts having regard to the novelty and importance of the issue raised]. In the present case the respondents were not defeated and have been substantially successful in their claim. The issue of maritime law which they raised has given rise, it seems for the first time in the common law world, to an assessment of the status of archaeology in Admiralty law. That is a question of obvious importance and I am satisfied that in all the circumstances there should be no deduction in the respondents' costs arising out of the judgment of the Court on that issue.

7. The final question for consideration as to costs relates to the effect (if any) of the lodgments, since consolidated, made by the appellants with their defences.

8. Mr. McGovern contends that I cannot assume that the ultimate award when made by the Commissioners will exceed the total lodgment. However, he is not prepared to disclose the amount in question and, therefore, he has precluded me from taking it into account in the matter of awarding costs. There is no information to establish, or even suggest, that the combined lodgments might exceed the assessment of the respondents' claim for expenses (which I have already measured at £72,660, including interest pursuant to the Courts Act, 1981 of £28,655 but excluding the cost of the present survey) together with a fair and reasonable reward for an archaeological discovery of major historical importance not merely for Ireland, Spain and England, but also for Europe and the world at large. It is reasonable that the question of the respondents' costs ought not to be delayed any longer. The lodgments could have relevance only if I had been informed of their collective amount and it transpired to be such that it could reasonably exceed the ultimate award to the respondents, including expenses, if properly assessed by the Commissioners.

9. I am satisfied that the respondents are entitled to their costs of the action in the High Court against the appellants on a party and party basis, including reserved costs.