Supreme Court awards costs to State parties, limiting respondents' recovery to pre-offer period.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, awarding costs to the State parties instead of the respondents. While the respondents had successfully challenged the quashing of their asylum decision, they refused a voluntary settlement offer made by the State. The Court held that because the respondents rejected the offer, they incurred the risk of litigation and are only entitled to costs incurred up to that point.
Legislator headnote
AI generateds. 10 of the Costs in the Supreme Court Act 1986; where a party rejects a voluntary offer to settle, they bear the risk of subsequent litigation and are only entitled to costs up to the date of the offer.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedRelated Decisions
AI generatedFull text
AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH
THE SUPREME COURT
S:AP: IE:2024:000150
[2026] IESC 000 14
Charleton J. O’Malley J. Woulfe J. Collins J. Donnelly J.
Between/
B.D., T.D. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, B.D.) AND M.D. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, B.D.)
Respondents
-and-
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE
Appellants
RULING ON COSTS
1. In this case, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal found a) that the respondents had shown a well-founded fear of persecution but b) that they were able to avail of State protection. The respondents then instituted judicial review proceedings. Thereafter, it was at all times accepted by the State parties that
conclusion b) was flawed, that the respondents had been required to institute proceedings to challenge it and that they were entitled to an order of certiorari.
2. The State parties accordingly, before filing opposition papers, made an open offer to consent to an order of certiorari and to pay the reasonable costs of the respondents up to that point. The offer was refused because the respondents wanted to sever the impugned decision, so that they would retain the benefit of the finding in respect of fear of persecution, while the State contended that the entire decision should be quashed and reconsidered. This was the only issue in the litigation.
3. The State was successful in the High Court, where no order was made as to costs. The respondents appealed and were successful in the Court of Appeal, where they were awarded costs. The decision of this Court has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal.
4. The appellants now seek their costs in each Court, on the basis that they have been entirely successful. The respondents seek their costs in this Court and the Court of Appeal, while leaving the High Court order in place.
5. The Court is of the view that the respondents are not entitled to their costs beyond the date of the open offer. After litigating in three courts, they have obtained only that which was available to them at that point. It is, in general, in the public interest that litigation should be resolved where reasonably possible, in the sphere of public/administrative law as well as private.
6. Litigation is not a risk-free activity and the costs regime reflects that fact. In this case, the respondents were at risk from the time that they rejected the offer.
7. The Court determines that:
a) The respondents are entitled to their costs up to the date of the offer, and
b) The appellants are entitled to the balance of the High Court and Court of Appeal costs.
8. The Court makes no order in respect of the costs in this appeal, in consideration of the fact that leave to appeal was granted to the State parties on a point of general public importance.