Ministers Darragh O'Brien (Climate, Energy and Environment) and Jack Chambers (Public Expenditure) recently signed new Regulations (SI No 200 of 2026) introducing a scale of costs for environmental Judicial Reviews. The Regulations upend the well-established principle of ‘costs follow the event’.

Under the new Regulations, where a party  successfully challenges a decision by way of Judicial Review on environmental grounds, the decision-making body will  only be liable for partial reimbursement, capped at the level set by the Regulations.

In 2024, the Law Society opposed the scale of costs provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2024, under which these Regulations were made. Early in 2025, the Law Society presented a detailed submission opposing the proposed scale of costs. However, despite reportedly receiving over 1,400 submissions, the Law Society is not aware of any substantive engagement with stakeholders on this issue by the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.

In its submission to the Department, the Law Society set out that the scale of costs is contrary to Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, which requires that review procedures be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

The scale of costs introduced in Ireland is modelled on the UK system, which is currently under investigation by the Aarhus Compliance Committee.

While the Ministers insist that “[t]he regulations do not limit access to justice or constrain the right of individuals or communities to challenge decisions”, recoverable costs are significantly – and deliberately – lower than actual costs. Successful applicants will be left to fund the shortfall themselves.

Consequently, the scale of costs will  establish a principle whereby ‘means rather than merit’ will determine whether an applicant is in a position to initiate a Judicial Review. For many,  the financial risk will be too great to bear, and they will  choose not to challenge a flawed decision.

The conclusion is unavoidable: the scale of costs is intended to create yet another obstacle to access to justice.