Supreme Court dismisses appeal on costs, ruling no order made due to fairness in circumstances.
Irlanda (IE)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe Supreme Court ruled on costs following the appellant's unsuccessful appeal against a refusal of judicial review. The appellant had previously lost in the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the review of district judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Although the general rule is that costs follow the event, the court decided to make no order for costs as a fair resolution given the specific circumstances.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAOrder 99, Rules of the Superior Courts 1986; s.169(1) Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015: The court may depart from the general rule that costs follow the event to make no order for costs where it is fair and just in the circumstances.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IAGiurisprudenza citata
Generato dall'IATesto completo
THE SUPREME COURT
[RECORD NO.: 262/2009]
MacMenamin J. Dunne J. Charleton J.
BETWEEN:
KEVIN TRACEY
APPELLANT
AND
DISTRICT JUDGE MIRIAM MALONE AND DISTRICT JUDGE
BRIDGET REILLY, KEVIN GROGAN, RONAN COFFEY, 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. The judgment in this appeal was delivered on the 30th April, 2020 by MacMenamin J ([2020] IESC 21). The appeal was against a judgment and order of Cooke J., delivered as long ago as the 20 th January, 2009, where that judge refused to grant judicial review against the respondents ([2009] IEHC 14). The circumstances were fully set out in detail by the High Court judgment and this Court’s judgment. The appellant’s application for judicial review was refused. His appeal failed in this Court, in a judgment which addressed all the issues raised.
2. Costs follow the event (Order 99, Rules of the Superior Courts 1986; s.169(1) Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015). Prima facie, the respondents would be entitled to their costs. However, in the circumstances, counsel for the respondents submit that the appropriate and just order is that no order for costs should be made. In my view, this is a fair resolution of the matter. I would, therefore, make no order for the costs of this appeal, or in the High Court. (See also observations made in Kevin Tracey v. District Judge Tom O’Donnell and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Record No. 173/2008, and Kevin Tracey v. District Judge Hugh O’Donnell and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Record No. 355/2006, rulings on costs also delivered today.)