THE COURT OF APPEAL
High Court Record No.: 2018 210 MCA
Court of Appeal Record Number: 2022/67
Neutral Citation No.: [2025] IECA 78
Whelan J.
Binchy J.
Allen J.
IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1998
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE EQUALITY ACT 2004
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
BETWEEN/
OLUMIDE SMITH
APPELLANT/
PLAINTIFF
- AND -
CISCO SYSTEMS INTERNETWORKING (IRELAND) LIMITED
RESPONDENT/
DEFENDANT
Costs Ruling of Mr. Justice Binchy delivered on the 31st day of March 2025
1. On 21st January last I handed down judgment in this appeal, dismissing the appellant's appeal from a judgment of the High Court of 13th November 2020, whereby Meenan J. had in turn dismissed the appeal of the appellant from a decision of an Adjudication Officer appointed by the then Equality Tribunal (now the Workplace Relations Commission) delivered on 18th February 2016.
2. The appellant advanced many grounds of appeal, but was entirely unsuccessful in each and every one. At the conclusion of the judgment, I expressed a preliminary view that since the respondent had been entirely successful in the appeal, as that term is used in s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015, that the respondent is entitled to an order for the costs incurred by it in resisting the appeal. At the same time, I stated that if the appellant wished to contend for a different order he could do so by written submissions within a period of 14 days.
3. The appellant availed of that opportunity, filing written submissions on 4th February last. The respondent filed replying submissions on 27th February.
4. Unfortunately, the appellant's submissions for the most part comprise submissions as to why in his view the substantive judgment handed down on 21st January was erroneous and discriminatory. The appellant also takes the opportunity to air a number of grievances that he has regarding the conduct of the proceedings and rulings made by the Court.
5. To the extent that he has made any submissions regarding the entitlement of the respondent to an order for its costs pursuant to s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015, the appellant says that the respondent should not obtain such an order having regard to:
· "Lodgement of the evidence adduced and/or proffered in the lower court[s]; and
· Provision of a complete "chronology of relevant dates" (i.e. the dates provided by the defendant are incomplete and selective)".
6. The appellant claims that "the entire judgment ... is incurably void ab initio" and instead of addressing the question as to why the Court should not make an order for costs against him in light of its judgment, he instead submits that the Court should vacate its judgment and order a new trial before a different panel. It is apparent therefore that the appellant has made no effort to advance any arguments as to why the Court should depart from the order provisionally indicated in the substantive judgment.
7. The respondent was entirely successful in the appeal. Section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 provides, in material part: -
"A party who is entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to an award of costs against a party who is not successful in those proceedings unless the court orders otherwise, having regard to the particular nature and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the proceedings by the parties, including..." [the matters referred to in sub paras.(a)-(g)].
8. Since the appellant has failed to advance any reasons at all as to why the Court should not make an order for costs in the terms indicated in the judgment of 21st January, never mind any reasons falling with the matters referred to at s. 169(1) (a)-(g) of the 2015 Act, the appropriate final order of the Court is one dismissing the appeal and ordering that the appellant discharge all costs incurred by the respondent in connection with the same, such costs to be determined by the Costs Adjudicator in default of agreement.
9. Whelan J. and Allen J. have authorised me to indicate their agreement with this ruling.