Supreme Court dismisses appeal on costs, ruling no exception applies despite constitutional novelty.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' request for a partial costs order, affirming that the respondents were entirely successful in the proceedings. Although the appellants argued the case involved a novel constitutional issue under Article 41.2 of the Constitution, the Court found these arguments insufficient to trigger an exception to the general rule. Consequently, the Court decided that no order regarding costs should be made in either the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Legislator headnote
AI generateds.169 LSRA Act 2015; Little v Chief Appeals Officer [2024] IESC 53: Where a party fails in proceedings, costs are generally awarded to the successful party unless the case involves a rare matter of general public importance justifying an exception.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedFull text
AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH
THE SUPREME COURT
S:AP:IE:2023:000115
[2025] IESC 39
O’Donnell C.J. Charleton J. O’Malley J. Woulfe J. Collins J.
Between/
BM and JM (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND BM)
Appellants
-and-
CHIEF APPEALS OFFICER, SOCIAL WELFARE APPEALS OFFICER, THE
MINISTER FOR SOCIAL PROTECTION, IRELAND AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondents
RULING of the Court delivered on the 29th of July, 2025.
1. In a judgment of 12 November 2024, [2024] IESC 51, the Court unanimously dismissed the Appellants’ appeal against the judgment of the High Court and affirmed the order of the High Court dismissing the application for judicial review.
2. It is accepted that the issue of costs must be approached on the basis that the Respondents have been “entirely successful” in the proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court, and accordingly the starting position is that the Respondents should be entitled to their costs in accordance with s.169 LSRA Act 2015 It is also accepted, however, that since this Court granted leave to appeal on the grounds that the decision involved a matter of general public importance, the issue of costs falls to be addressed by reference to the principles recently set out by the Court in Little v Chief Appeals Officer and Ors. [2024] IESC 53 (“Little”).
3. Taking these factors into account, the Respondents do not seek an order for costs in their favour, but rather submit that the Court should make no order as to costs. The Appellants for their part contend that the Court should direct that the Respondents pay the Appellants fifty per cent of their costs of the proceedings in the High Court and fifty per cent of the costs of the appeal.
4. The Appellants make four main arguments in this regard: first, that the proceedings involve a Constitutional issue concerning Article 41.2 of the Constitution that “touched on sensitive aspects of the human condition”; second, that the Constitution issue is one of “conspicuous novelty and importance”; third, that the proceedings raised a “novel and important issue of far-reaching importance in an area of the law of general application”; and fourth, the fact that two members of the Court (Woulfe J. and Charleton J. concurring) found that the position taken by the State in respect of the constitutional issue raised under Article 41.2 was “somewhat unsatisfactory”.
5. This is a case in which, at a human level, it is impossible not to sympathise with the Appellants. However, the claim failed at each stage, as a matter of law. The Court is satisfied that none of the matters advanced by the Appellant are sufficient to bring this case into the category of rare cases identified in Little, in which it would be appropriate to grant to a party which had failed in the proceedings either their costs, or a proportion of their costs. The Court is satisfied that the justice of the case would be met by making no order as to costs in either Court.