Government plans to cap legal fees in planning and environmental cases were opposed by 98 percent of more than 1,400 respondents to a public consultation.
A review document said there was overwhelming opposition to changes that could weaken “fundamental legal safeguards” when taking cases to protect the environment.
Submissions pointed out the high rate of success in legal challenges and said that while “vexatious litigation” did occur, it was rare.
Changes to the rules around judicial reviews form a key part of government plans to accelerate infrastructure development in Ireland.
Under their proposals, cost protections would be watered down, leaving members of the public exposed to the risk of significantly higher costs from taking cases.
The number of judicial reviews being taken fell by around 20 percent last year, while a growing proportion of cases were taken by landowners and property developers.
The public consultation on government plans took place in December and January with the Department of Climate saying it was “very successful.”
Some of those who responded suggested the government’s plans could be contrary to EU law and the Aarhus Convention on protecting the environment.
The review document said: “Respondents suggested that where a public body is unsuccessful in proceedings before a court because its decision is found to be unlawful, it does not deserve protection in relation to litigation costs.”
It added: “They argued that it was the public body’s own action that created the need for litigation in the first place.”
Other submissions said changing the rules around fees would have no impact on State organisations, which could always rely on taxpayer funds to fight cases.
People taking challenges, however, would be left trying to get enough technical or legal advice to bring a case forward.
Even if they were successful, they could face a large bill.
A summary of the small number of submissions in favour of the proposal said judicial review was causing delays and that this was “imposing a real and measurable cost on society.”
One respondent estimated that 37,000 homes were delayed by legal challenges and there was “little financial risk” involved for litigants.
Some suggested the proposals did not go far enough.
“Concern was expressed that the proposed scale of fees is more generous than legislated for in the UK. It was suggested that the cap be reviewed so that it is not out of step with our nearest neighbour,” the summary said.
Asked about the report, a spokesperson for the Department of Climate said: “The scale of fees proposal acknowledges that a requirement of the Aarhus Convention is that access to justice must not be ‘prohibitively expensive’.
“The scale of fees will bring a clear, predictable cost framework for applicants taking judicial reviews and the public bodies who may have to pay the costs.
“We want to prevent unpredictable costs for the taxpayer and reduce the financial burden flowing from prolonged delays to public infrastructure.”