SIX months after the Island Development Committee was ordered to pay court costs to Dave Barrett, he is having to go back to court to get the money. Mr Barrett won his case against the committee, which was found liable in the Court of Appeal for contravening land-use policies.

Three judges ruled that Mr Barrett should have the costs of all his legal challenges covered, which he estimated at about £12,000, but he has received only £6,000.

‘I said in the States that I was expecting to receive around £12,000,’ said Mr Barrett, a former deputy and IDC vice-president.

‘The bill went in, we got £6,000, then we received notification from the Environment Department that it was going to put it to a taxing judge.’

A taxing judge is appointed by the Bailiff and examines whether costs are reasonable.

Mr Barrett offered the Environment Department a reduction of £1,000 in an attempt to settle quickly but this was turned down.

‘That’s not been accepted. It was done in the name of the Environment Department but the couple of members I have spoken to know nothing about it. I don’t know whether that decision was taken by Crown advocates or planning officers, but it doesn’t seem to have been taken at a political level.’

Mr Barrett lost two earlier court cases when he sued the IDC for granting permission in principle for a herb-processing venture at the Sandpiper Vinery, St Peter’s, and went to the Court of Appeal to overturn those decisions.

The judges overruled a request from the IDC’s counsel that only the costs from Mr Barrett’s earlier legal challenges should be met by the committee.

‘I asked the Court of Appeal judges for costs, not only in the Court of Appeal but in the other cases. Advocate McMahon [who represented the IDC] said we shouldn’t get costs for the earlier hearings but the judges said it should be for all the hearings.’

Mr Barrett now has to wait for a taxing judge to be appointed and a court date set before he stands a chance of settling the matter. If successful, he would be unable to collect any interest accrued during that time.

‘I feel that I haven’t had justice. I had justice in the Court of Appeal but my feeling is that someone is being extremely awkward and making me pay for winning, but I don’t know who it is.’

Environment minister Bernard Flouquet said he could not comment on the matter because it was ‘sub judice’.