Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IESC 54 ECLI:IE:SC:2021:54 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal on costs, awarding none to the unsuccessful appellant in judicial review proceedings.

Case Number IESC 54
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding costs in judicial review proceedings. The appellant, who represented himself, claimed entitlement to a sum based on the proceedings' length, but his appeal was entirely unsuccessful. The Court ruled that no order for costs should be made, aligning with the respondents' submission that the appellant's total failure warranted no financial award.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Order 99, Superior Court Rules 1986; s.169 of the Legal Services Regulations Act, 2015: Costs follow the event, and an entirely unsuccessful party is not entitled to an award of costs.

Keywords

AI generated
costs follow the event judicial review appeal unsuccessful party legal services regulations superior court rules

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Order 99, Superior Court Rules 1986
The general principle applicable, pursuant to Order 99, Superior Court Rules 1986, as amended, and s.169 of the Legal Services Regulations Act, 2015 is that costs follow the event, and that a party who is entirely successful is entitled to their costs.
s.169 of the Legal Services Regulations Act, 2015
The general principle applicable, pursuant to Order 99, Superior Court Rules 1986, as amended, and s.169 of the Legal Services Regulations Act, 2015 is that costs follow the event, and that a party who is entirely successful is entitled to their costs.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
[2020] IESC 19
Supreme Court dismisses judicial review appeal where appellant failed to use available appeal rights for evidence sufficiency.

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 SUPREME COURT

[RECORD NO.: 173/2008]

MacMenamin J. Dunne J. Charleton J.

BETWEEN:

KEVIN TRACEY

APPELLANT

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE TOM O’DONNELL AND THE DIRECTOR OF

PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENTS

Ruling on Costs by Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 23rd day of August, 2021

1. This is a ruling on costs. This was an appeal against a judgment and order of McGovern J. in the High Court. In a written judgment dated the 6 th March, 2008, the appellant was refused judicial review. The appellant’s appeal this Court was dismissed ([2020] IESC 19). The judgments of the High Court and of this Court set out the full circumstances of the case. The appellant, Mr. Tracey, who represented himself, submitted he was entitled to a sum of €9,019 by way of his costs and outlay. He drew the Court’s attention to the length of time these proceedings had been before the Court. But Mr. Tracey’s appeal was dismissed. His appeal was entirely unsuccessful. Counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that no order for costs should be made in these proceedings, either in the High Court, or in this Court.

2. The general principle applicable, pursuant to Order 99, Superior Court Rules 1986, as amended, and s.169 of the Legal Services Regulations Act, 2015 is that costs follow the event, and that a party who is entirely successful is entitled to their costs. In not applying for costs, therefore, the respondents are making a substantial concession. An award of costs in this, and the other matters involving Mr. Tracey ruled on today (Record Nos. 355/2006 and 262/2009), could very easily run into four figures in each case. Like any other case, a judicial review should not be undertaken without a realisation that, at the end of the day, there may be an order for costs against an unsuccessful party.

3. Having regard to the submissions made, the Court considers the just order is to make no order for costs, in accordance with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents.