Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and orders appellant to pay respondent's legal costs following unsuccessful appeal.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against previous High Court orders and ruled that costs must follow the event. The appellant argued that general issues raised justified no costs order, but the court found this amounted to re-litigation of already decided matters. Consequently, the court ordered the unsuccessful appellant to pay the respondent's legal costs, to be determined by a legal costs adjudicator.
Legislator headnote
AI generateds. 10 of the Costs Act 1983; where an appeal is unsuccessful and no special circumstances exist, the general rule that costs follow the event applies, requiring the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party's costs.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL
[2022 No. 237]
The President Neutral Citation Number [2023] IECA 133
Edwards J. Whelan J.
BETWEEN
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF WILSON’S HOSPITAL SCHOOL
RESPONDENT
AND
ENOCH BURKE
APPELLANT
RULING of the Court on COSTS delivered (via electronic delivery) on the 26th day of May 2023 by Birmingham P.
1. On 7th March 2023, this Court delivered three judgments dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a number of High Court orders. The question of what order should be made in relation to the costs of the appeal hearing arises for consideration.
2. The parties were invited to provide written submissions. In those submissions, the appellant contended that no costs order should be made. The submissions referred to the fact that issues of general importance were raised. It must be said that the submissions on the part of the appellant, to some extent, at least, involve a re-litigation of the issues that were before the Court on the appeal hearing where he was unsuccessful. The respondent contends that the usual rule is that costs follow the event and that there were no substantial reasons of an unusual kind which would justify – still less, require – departing from that rule. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of the respondent. In our view, this is indeed a case where costs must follow the event, where there must be an order for costs in favour of the successful party, the respondent, the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School, and against the unsuccessful party, the appellant, such costs to be adjudicated by a legal costs adjudicator in default of agreement, and that will be the order of the Court.
Mr. Justice George Birmingham
Mr. Justice John Edwards
Ms. Justice Maire Whelan