BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Irish Court of Appeal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> O'Connor v Legal Aid Board & Ors (Approved) [2025] IECA 94 (06 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2025/2025IECA94.html
Cite as: [2025] IECA 94

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

APPROVED                                                                           NO REDACTION NEEDED

 

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

 

Neutral Citation No. [2025] IECA 94

 

Court of Appeal Record Number: 2024/143

 

High Court Record Number: 2019/5432P

 

Whelan J.

Allen J.

Meenan J.

 

 

BETWEEN/

 

 

JOHN O'CONNOR

 

 

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

 

 

- AND –

 

 

LEGAL AID BOARD, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

 

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

 

 

 

RULING ON COSTS delivered by Mr. Justice Charles Meenan on the 6th day of May 2025

1.             The Court delivered its judgment on 20 February 2025 in the appellant's appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing his action seeking damages for defamation and malicious falsehood against the first named respondent.  The Court dismissed the appeal.  I refer to the judgment delivered.

2.             The Court expressed its provisional view that as the respondent had been "entirely successful" in opposing the appeal that it should be entitled to its costs.  If the appellant wished to contest this view he was directed to do so by way of written submissions.  The respondent was afforded an opportunity to reply, again by way of written submissions.

3.             The appellant delivered his written submissions on 3 March 2025 and the respondent, in reply, delivered its submissions on 11 March 2025.  The Court has considered these submissions. 

Award of costs: -

4.              The position on costs is governed by sections 168 and 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 (the Act of 2015) and O. 99, rr. 2 & 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended).  The default position is that "costs follow the event" where a party has been "entirely successful" 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 matters set out at (a) to (g) in section 169(1) of the Act of 2015.

5.             The aforesaid provisions were considered by the Court of Appeal (Murray J.) in Chubb European Group SE v Health Insurance Authority [2020] IECA 183. At para. 19 of the judgment the following general principles were set out: -

(a)     The general discretion of the Court in connection with the ordering of costs is preserved (s.168(1)(a) and O.99, r.2(1)).

 

(b)     In considering the awarding of costs of any action, the Court should 'have regard to' the provisions of s.169(1) [(O.99, r.3(1))].

 

(c)     In a case where the party seeking costs has been 'entirely successful in those proceedings', the party so succeeding 'is entitled' to an award of costs against the unsuccessful party unless the court orders otherwise (s.169(1)).

 

(d)     In determining whether to 'order otherwise' the court should have regard to the 'nature and circumstances of the case' and 'the conduct of the proceedings by the parties' (s.169(1)).

 

(e)     Further, the matters to which the court shall have regard in deciding whether to so order otherwise include the conduct of the parties before and during the proceedings, and whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest one or more issues (s. 169(1)(a) and (b)).

 

(f)      The Court, in the exercise of its discretion may also make an order that where a party is 'partially successful' in the proceedings, it should recover costs relating to the successful element or elements of the proceedings (s.168(2)(d)).

 

(g)     Even where a party has not been 'entirely successful' the court should still have regard to the matters referred to in s.169(1)(a)-(g) when deciding whether to award costs (O.99, r.3(1)).

 

(h)     In the exercise of its discretion, the Court may order the payment of a portion of a party's costs, or costs from or until a specified date (s.168(2)(a))."

 

 

Submissions: -

6.              In his submissions the appellant sought to raise what he considered to be "errors in the judgment".  Further, the appellant sought to re-litigate certain matters that were considered by the court in the course of his appeal.  The court wishes to make clear that it will not engage with the appellant on what he considers to be "errors in the judgment" or consider further submissions from the appellant on the merits of his appeal.  Such matters have no place in submissions on costs.  

7.             Insofar as the appellant makes reference to sections 168 and 169 of the Act of 2015 he does so in the context of having had to issue motions for judgment in default of defence and refers, again, to what he considers to be "errors in the judgment". 

8.             The respondent in its submissions refers to s. 169(1) of the Act of 2015 and states that the appellant has not identified any basis under s. 169(1)(a) - (g) or otherwise as would permit the Court to depart from the ordinary rule of costs following the event.

Decision: -

9.             It is perfectly clear from the appellant's submissions that he has made no attempt to identify any matters under s. 169(1) or otherwise as would permit the court to depart from the ordinary rule of costs "following the event" thus the respondent, having been "entirely successful" in opposing the appeal is entitled to its costs including reserved costs.  Such costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

10.         As this ruling is being delivered electronically, Whelan and Allen JJ. have authorised me to record their agreement with it. 


Result:     Respondents entitled to Costs including reserved Costs

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010