Introduction

The case of Butterly v Cullinane ([2024] IEHC 465) was adjudicated in the High Court of Ireland on July 24, 2024. This judicial review involved Eamonn Butterly as the applicant and Myra Cullinane, the Coroner for the Dublin District, along with families of the 47 deceased represented by Phoenix Law, Patricia Kennedy, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, and Dublin City Council as the respondents. The core issue revolved around an application for leave to judicially review the Coroner's instructions to the jury during the Stardust inquest, which pertains to the tragic Stardust Fire that resulted in 47 fatalities on February 14, 1981.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided by Mr. Justice Tony O'Connor, delivered an ex tempore judgment refusing the application for leave to judicially review the Coroner's instructions to the jury. The court held that the families involved had a legitimate interest in the proceedings and were entitled to incur costs for their legal representation during the application for leave. Consequently, the applicant, Eamonn Butterly, was directed to discharge these costs. The judgment underscored the importance of balancing the rights of the families with the procedural requirements of judicial review applications, especially in sensitive and ongoing inquests.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the court’s decision:

• O'Connor v. Nenagh Urban District Council (2002) IESC 42: Affirmed the court's discretion to award costs to notice parties involved in judicial review cases. The Supreme Court emphasized that costs in such cases are within the court's discretion under Order 99(2)(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC).
• Treasury Holdings v. NAMA and Ors (2012): Established that costs associated with a leave application for a notice party could be awarded against an applicant, and that an applicant might recover costs even if the application proceeded to substantive judicial review.
• DPP v. Special Criminal Court (1999): Provided guidance on judicial review applications during ongoing trials or inquests, emphasizing the need for balancing constitutional rights and highlighting the reluctance of courts to intervene during proceedings.
• Khan v. HM Coroner for West Hertfordshire (2002): Highlighted the court's hesitance to intervene in ongoing inquests to avoid unnecessary delays and disruptions.
• Cooper v. HM Corner of Northeast Kent (2014): Reinforced the principle of non-intervention in inquests unless absolutely necessary, preventing interruptions that could prejudice the proceedings.
• Rowland v. An Post (2017): Although about employment law, it was cited to illustrate judicial reluctance to interfere in ongoing investigative processes.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on several core principles:

• Discretion in Cost Awards: Citing Order 99(2)(1) of the RSC, the High Court has broad discretion to award costs in civil proceedings. The precedents affirmed that families acting as notice parties in judicial review applications have a substantive interest warranting cost compensation.
• Balancing Rights and Procedural Integrity: The judgment emphasized the need to balance the families' constitutional and human rights against the procedural mechanisms of judicial reviews. This balance ensures that legal processes do not unduly prejudice the rights of parties involved, especially in sensitive matters like inquests into mass casualties.
• Judicial Reluctance to Intervene: Drawing from key cases, the court demonstrated a reluctance to interfere in ongoing inquests or trials unless there is a compelling reason. This ensures that proceedings are not unduly delayed or disrupted.
• Prematurity of the Application: The court noted that the application for leave was premature, as the inquests had not progressed beyond the leave stage. However, the court found this did not negate the families' rights to be heard and to incur legal costs.
• Impact on Jury Deliberations: The applicant argued that the Coroner’s instructions might influence the jury's verdict improperly. The court acknowledged the concern but found that the Coroner was adequately prepared to guide the jury appropriately without necessitating judicial intervention.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in Irish law regarding the allocation of costs in judicial review applications, especially when notice parties are involved. Key impacts include:

• Cost Liability of Applicants: Applicants in judicial review cases may be held liable for the legal costs incurred by notice parties, reinforcing the need for applicants to consider the financial implications of their legal actions.
• Protection of Families' Interests: Families and other interested parties are recognized as having a legitimate stake in judicial proceedings affecting them, warranting their entitlement to legal representation costs.
• Procedural Safeguards: The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their case without being financially disadvantaged.
• Judicial Oversight: While courts exercise discretion in awarding costs, they also act as a check against potentially frivolous or undue legal actions, maintaining the integrity of judicial processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process where the judiciary evaluates the actions of the executive or other public bodies to ensure they comply with the law. In this case, Eamonn Butterly sought to challenge the Coroner's instructions to the jury during the inquest.

Notice Parties

Notice parties are individuals or groups who are directly affected by a legal proceeding and are given the opportunity to participate or respond. Here, the families of the deceased were notice parties in the judicial review application.

Cost Liability

Cost liability refers to the legal responsibility of one party to pay the legal costs incurred by another party in a court case. The High Court determined that Mr. Butterly must cover the legal fees of the families for their participation in the judicial review application.

Ex Parte Application

An ex parte application is made by one party without the presence or participation of the other parties. Although the rules allow for ex parte applications under Order 84(20) of the RSC, the court deemed the families as de facto parties, thus entitling them to cost recovery.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Butterly v Cullinane underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring procedural fairness and protecting the rights of all parties involved in legal proceedings. By holding the applicant liable for the families' legal costs, the court reinforced the principle that those initiating judicial reviews must bear the financial responsibilities associated with their actions, especially when those actions impact other stakeholders. This judgment not only clarifies the scope of cost liability in judicial reviews involving notice parties but also serves as a deterrent against potential frivolous applications that may unduly burden affected parties. The ruling affirms the delicate balance courts must maintain between facilitating legitimate legal challenges and safeguarding the interests of individuals engaged in sensitive and consequential inquests.