Introduction

The case of O'Doherty and ANOR v. The Minister for Health and ORS (Approved) ([2020] IEHC 274) was adjudicated by the High Court of Ireland on June 4, 2020. The applicants, Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters, sought judicial review of certain legislations and regulations enacted by the Irish government to mitigate the impacts of Covid-19. Specifically, they challenged the constitutionality of these measures and questioned the legislative process followed by the Oireachtas (the Irish Parliament). The core legal dispute centered on whether the applicants were entitled to have their application heard without incurring costs upon refusal, given their claim of acting in the public interest.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Meenan delivered the judgment, refusing the applicants' application for leave to challenge the legislation. The court considered the applicants' failure to engage substantially with the arguments presented by the respondents and the Oireachtas. Consequently, the High Court upheld the general rule that “costs follow the event,” awarding costs to the respondents and the Oireachtas. The applicants' arguments that their public interest motives should exempt them from paying these costs were dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced two significant precedents:

• Dunne v. Minister for the Environment [2008] 2 I.R. 755: This case emphasized that courts must carefully consider whether to depart from the standard cost rule, requiring a reasoned basis for any deviation.
• R (on the application of Mount Cook Land Ltd) v. Westminster City Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1346: An English Court of Appeal decision that the applicants in the current case cited to argue against the imposition of costs at the leave stage. However, the High Court found that this precedent was based on different legislation and hence not directly applicable.

These precedents collectively underscored the principle that cost awards are not automatically withheld in public interest cases and that each case's unique circumstances determine the appropriateness of such awards.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was anchored in Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015, which stipulates that costs generally follow the event unless specific exceptions apply. Justice Meenan evaluated whether the applicants met any exceptional criteria that would warrant departing from this rule. The applicants argued that acting in the public interest should exempt them from costs. However, the court found that their conduct did not justify such an exemption because they did not engage effectively with the opposition, failed to provide substantive submissions, and did not sufficiently address the arguments against their application.

Furthermore, the court rejected the applicants' reliance on the English precedent, clarifying that local legislation governs the cost rules. The absence of exceptional factors in this case led the court to uphold the standard costs rule.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that unsuccessful applicants in judicial reviews are liable for costs, even in public interest cases. It serves as a cautionary tale for litigants asserting public interest motivations, emphasizing the necessity of engaging substantively with respondents and presenting well-founded legal arguments. Future applicants must recognize that claiming public interest alone does not shield them from potential cost implications if their applications are unsuccessful.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Costs Follow the Event

This legal doctrine means that the losing party in a lawsuit typically pays the legal costs of the winning party. It serves to discourage frivolous litigation and ensure that parties are responsible for their own legal expenses unless specified otherwise by the court.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a process where courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they comply with the law. It allows individuals or groups to challenge the legality of decisions or actions taken by government officials or bodies.

Leave to Challenge Constitutionality

"Leave" refers to permission granted by the court to proceed with a legal challenge. In this context, the applicants sought the court's permission to contest the constitutionality of certain health-related legislation. Without leave, the case does not proceed to full hearing.

Protective Costs Order

A Protective Costs Order is a type of court order that can limit or exempt a party from paying certain legal costs, typically granted to prevent undue financial burden, especially in cases deemed to be in the public interest. In this case, the applicants sought such an order but were denied.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in O'Doherty and ANOR v. The Minister for Health and ORS (Approved) [2020] IEHC 274 reaffirms the prevailing legal principle that costs generally follow the event in judicial review proceedings. The court made it clear that claiming to act in the public interest does not inherently exempt applicants from bearing costs, especially when their conduct does not meet the standards expected in legal proceedings. This judgment underscores the importance of thorough engagement and substantive argumentation in judicial reviews, ensuring that public interest litigants adhere to procedural and substantive legal standards to avoid unfavorable cost implications.