Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shape the court’s approach to costs in judicial review cases:

• Dunne v. Minister for the Environment: Establishes that courts possess discretion to depart from the normal costs rule in special circumstances.
• Chubb European Group SE v. Health Insurance Authority: Discussed the retroactivity of new costs regimes, ultimately deciding against its application without party argument.
• Veolia Water UK plc v. Fingal County Council (No.2): Outlined conditions under which costs may be varied, particularly in complex cases where unmeritorious points increase costs.
• Aforge Finance S.A.S. v. HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Limited: Addressed costs implications when proceedings are lengthened unnecessarily.
• Dardis v Poplovka: Exemplified the application of Veolia principles in awarding costs for parties that unnecessarily prolonged proceedings.

These precedents collectively informed the Court's determination to adhere to the standard costs framework, emphasizing that departures are exceptional and must be justified by special factors.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning centered on the applicability of the costs regime in place at the time the proceedings were initiated. Given that the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and the recast Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts were not in force during the majority of the proceedings, the Court applied the old costs regime. The absence of arguments regarding retroactivity further solidified this approach.

Regarding the applicants' arguments for departing from the standard costs rule, the Court meticulously examined the criteria outlined in the Dunne and Veolia cases. It concluded that the circumstances of the applicants did not meet the threshold for such departures. Specifically, the applicants failed to demonstrate that their cases involved fundamental constitutional issues, exceptional public importance, or procedural complexities that would justify varying the usual costs allocation.

The Court also addressed the notion that litigants confronting state entities with greater resources should be shielded from the financial burdens of legal costs. It reaffirmed that financial disparities between parties do not, in themselves, warrant departures from established costs principles.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the High Court's stance on maintaining consistency in costs allocation, particularly in judicial review cases involving state bodies. By declining to apply the new costs regime retroactively and refusing to depart from the standard rules absent compelling reasons, the Court underscores the principle that judicial economy and predictability in legal proceedings must be upheld.

For future cases, this decision serves as a precedent that applicants must present strong, justifiable grounds to deviate from the ordinary costs rule. It also clarifies that the mere presence of state resources does not suffice for altering costs outcomes, thus setting clear expectations for litigants and legal practitioners alike.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process where courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they comply with the law. It does not re-evaluate the merits of a decision but assesses whether the decision-making process was lawful, fair, and reasonable.

Costs Follow the Event

This legal principle means that the losing party in litigation is typically responsible for paying the winning party's legal costs. It aims to discourage frivolous lawsuits and ensure that parties bear the financial consequences of unsuccessful claims.

Certiorari

Certiorari is an order by a higher court to review the decision of a lower court or public authority, ensuring that the decision was made correctly and lawfully.

Recast Order 99

Order 99 pertains to the Rules of the Superior Courts, specifically regulating the procedures for awarding costs in legal proceedings. The 'recast' refers to amendments made to modernize and clarify the rules.