Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and awards costs to respondents under Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

AN CHÚIRT ACHOMHAIRC THE COURT OF APPEAL APPROVED – NO REDACTION NEEDED Court of Appeal Record Number: 2025/83 High Court Record Number: 2020/8318 P Neutral Citation Number: [2026] IECA 16

Faherty J. McDonald J. Collins J.

BETWEEN/ EUGENIE HOUSTON

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

- AND -

LEONIE REYNOLDS

DEFENDANT

- AND -

IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Anthony M. Collins delivered on the 17th day of February 2026

I. Scope of Judgment

1. By judgment delivered on 21 November 2025 ([2025] IECA 224), the Court dismissed this appeal and affirmed the High Court judgment of 5 February 2025 ([2025] IEHC 58, Sanfey J.) and order of 18 February 2025. In the light of that outcome, and the default position under s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 that parties that have been entirely successful in proceedings are entitled to an award of costs against an unsuccessful party unless the court hearing the matter orders otherwise, the Court expressed the provisional view that the respondents were entitled to an order against the appellant for the costs of the proceedings in this Court, to include any reserved costs.

2. If the appellant wished to contend for another form of costs order, she was invited to file and serve a written submission of not more than 1,000 words within fourteen days of the delivery of that judgment, in which event the respondents were afforded an identical period of time in which to respond. The parties accepted this invitation by lodging submissions received in the Office on 9 and 19 December 2025, respectively.

II. Ruling on the Costs of the Appeal

3. Having been, in their view, entirely successful in resisting this appeal, by reference to s. 169 (1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the respondents submit that costs follow the event and that the Court should direct the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal, including reserved costs.

4. The greater part of the appellant’s written submissions is a reiteration of her claim against the defendants in the action that the High Court, by order of 13 February 2024 (see judgment of 7 February 2024, [2024] IEHC 64), struck out and dismissed pursuant to that court’s inherent jurisdiction as being bound to fail, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

5. The issue decided by the High Court Judgment of 7 February 2024 is res judicata. It cannot be relitigated in the context of the Court ruling on the costs of this appeal.

6. Paragraph 7(ii) of the appellant’s written submissions represents that, by reference to what she describes as an attack upon her, the removal of the right to access justice is a matter of general public importance and a matter of public interest. Paragraph 7(iii) states that the conduct of the first defendant and the admission that she had no immunity from suit are issues in the public interest and of general public importance. Paragraph 7(iv) describes the respondents’ position that they will decide on behalf of the categories of persons set out in the Schedule to the Order the subject matter of this appeal as of public importance and in the public interest. Paragraph 7(viii) of the appellant’s written submissions states that, in cases where the unsuccessful party is awarded costs and the case involves general public interest, the relevant authority is Little v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection [2024] IESC 53. This is followed by the statement that: “[T]he Appellant urges the Court to make an Order for costs in her favour and to defend the Declarations that each took as a Judge: each has enlisted and must now soldier.”

7. Paragraphs 34 and 68 of the judgment of Murray J. in Little define “public interest proceedings” to include a claim against the State, or an organ or agency thereof, seeking relief in public law to challenge the validity, having regard to the general principles of administrative law, of a decision of that body by way of judicial review that raises directly a point of law of general public importance.

8. This appeal is against an order to restrain the appellant from issuing proceedings against any of the persons or classes of persons or potential defendants or potential respondents identified in the Schedule thereto without prior leave either of the President of the High Court or of a judge of that Court nominated by him for the purpose of hearing an application by the appellant for leave to issue such proceedings. An Isaac Wunder order made in the circumstances described in the judgment under appeal does not come within the scope of “public interest proceedings” as defined in Little.

9. Whilst that finding is sufficient to displace the appellant’s purported reliance upon the guidance that the Supreme Court afforded to this Court in Little, she has also not identified any point of law of general public importance that arose for determination in this appeal. Paragraph 11 of the judgment of this Court identified ten grounds of appeal. The reasons it dismissed each of the ten grounds the appellant advanced, as set out in detail at Part III of the judgment, show that none of those grounds contained any point of law that might be objectively described as of general public importance.

10. Having found that the appellant’s reliance upon the guidance provided in Little is misplaced, she has identified no other basis upon which this Court either could, or should, depart from the rule in s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 which entitles the respondents to an order for the costs of this appeal against her.

III. Conclusion

11. For the reasons set out at Part II, above, the respondents are entitled to an order to recover the costs of and incidental to this appeal, including all reserved costs, as against the appellant.

12. Since this judgment is delivered electronically, I am authorised by Faherty and McDonald JJ. to state that they agree with it and with the order proposed therein.

Appearances:

The Appellant appeared in person

For the Respondents: Douglas Clarke SC, Paul Gardiner SC and Paul Brady, instructed by the Chief State Solicitor