Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IECA 279 ECLI:IE:CA:2020:279 AI generated

Court of Appeal dismisses appeal on costs, rejecting request to reargue merits due to lack of fundamental error.

Case Number IECA 279
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's request for further submissions regarding costs, noting the parties failed to agree on a form of order. The court found that the appellant's claim of a fundamental misunderstanding by the lower court was unsupported and did not justify revisiting a final decision. Consequently, the court refused to reargue the merits, emphasizing that its jurisdiction to correct such errors is wholly exceptional and not engaged here.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Costs Act 1963; Supreme Court Act 1981: The court's jurisdiction to revisit a final decision is wholly exceptional and is not engaged by allegations of fundamental misunderstanding or to reargue the merits of a costs award.

Keywords

AI generated
costs jurisdiction final decision fundamental error reargue merits exceptional jurisdiction costs order appellate review

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Neutral Citation Number [2020] IECA 279 Record Number: 2019/226

Costello J. Noonan J. Murray J.

BETWEEN/

RECORDED ARTISTS ACTORS PERFORMERS LIMITED

PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT

- AND -

PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE (IRELAND) LIMITED

DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT delivered on the 24th day of June 2020

1. On the 3 April 2020, the court gave judgment on the appeals in this case and invited the parties to agree a form of order, to include costs, or failing agreement, to make submissions to the court. The parties could not reach agreement, and, at their request, the court received written submissions and heard oral submissions from the parties on both the form of the order and the costs. The court reserved its decision and gave a supplemental judgment on 5 June 2020 on the costs.

2. Solicitors for RAAP wrote to the registrar of the court requesting that they be allowed to make further submissions in light of the decision on costs of the 5 June 2020, which, if uncorrected, would lead to a grave injustice. The precise issue was not identified. The court permitted the parties to make short submissions on the unidentified issue. The issue identified is a misunderstanding, according to RAAP, by the court of the position of RAAP such that the award of costs proceeded on a mistaken premise.

3. The court has given its ruling on costs and has set out its reasons for its decision. It is not appropriate to reargue the merits of that decision on the basis that the court allegedly has fundamentally misunderstood the factual or legal position. The wholly exceptional jurisdiction of the court to revisit a final decision it has issued is not engaged by the facts of this case and to attempt to reverse the decision of the court in the manner suggested by the submissions of RAAP is to be strongly deprecated.