Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced pivotal cases and statutory provisions to substantiate its rulings:

• McInerney Homes Ltd [2011] IESC 31: Established the stringent criteria for reopening judgments, emphasizing exceptional circumstances and common mistake.
• Collins v Minister for Finance [2014] IEHC 79: Highlighted scenarios where costs might deviate from the general rule.
• Dunne v Minister for the Environment [2007] IESC 60: Affirmed that public interest litigation does not automatically qualify for cost deviations.
• Curtin v Dáil Éireann [2006] IESC 27: Reinforced the principle that costs generally follow the cause.
• Godsil v Ireland [2015] 4 IR 535: Clarified the interpretation of 'events' under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
• Moyne v Todd & Ors [2024] IECA 172: Provided recent clarifications on the reopening of judgments in exceptional circumstances.
• SZ (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform [2013] IEHC 95: Emphasized the high threshold for revisiting final judgments.
• G. v A Judge of the District Court [2023] IEHC 386 and Gaultier v Reilly [2023] IEHC 558: Further underscored the limited scope for reopening cases.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Bolger's legal reasoning was methodical, adhering closely to established doctrines:

• Costs Doctrine: Reaffirmed the doctrine that, in civil litigation, the prevailing party is entitled to costs unless specific exceptions are met. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would warrant deviation from this principle.
• Reopening Judgments: Emphasized the high bar set by precedents like McInerney Homes and Moyne v Todd, requiring clear evidence of common mistake or flawed assumptions. The new Apple case did not meet these stringent criteria.
• Exceptional Circumstances: Analyzed the plaintiffs' reliance on the Apple decision, determining that speculative assertions about hypothetical financial outcomes did not constitute exceptional circumstances.
• Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015: Interpreted narrowly, limiting the scope of 'events' that could influence costs awards. The plaintiffs' arguments regarding previous settlements and offers were insufficiently substantiated.
• Slip Rule: Denied correction requests, clarifying that the alleged 'falsehoods' were misinterpretations rather than clerical errors.

Impact

The judgment has profound implications for future litigation and judicial processes in Ireland:

• Reinforcement of Costs Rules: Solidifies the principle that costs follow the cause, deterring litigants from pursuing costs exceptions without substantial justification.
• Judicial Finality: Upholds the integrity of final judgments, limiting opportunities for successive litigations to revisit settled issues unless exceptional grounds are presented.
• Guidance on Reopening Cases: Provides clear parameters on what constitutes exceptional circumstances, guiding future litigants on the feasibility of such applications.
• Interpretation of Section 169: Narrows the interpretation of 'events' affecting costs, ensuring that only pertinent and directly impactful events influence costs decisions.
• Impact on Public Interest Litigation: Demonstrates that even cases of purported high public importance must meet rigorous standards to influence costs or judicial decisions post-judgment.

The Costs Doctrine

In Irish civil litigation, the general rule is that the losing party pays the legal costs of the winning party. This principle, known as "costs follow the cause," ensures that prevailing parties are not financially disadvantaged by bringing a case to court. Exceptions to this rule exist but require the court to recognize exceptional circumstances where deviation is justified.

Section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015

This section outlines specific instances where the awarding of costs may deviate from the general rule. For example, it allows for costs to be awarded to the losing party in unusual circumstances, such as when a party has shown exceptional behavior or in cases involving public interest. However, the court interprets these provisions narrowly, ensuring that only clearly defined situations meet the criteria for exceptions.

The Slip Rule (Order 28, Rule 11)

This rule permits the correction of clerical errors or accidental omissions in judgments without necessitating an appeal. To invoke the slip rule, the error must be demonstrable and not merely a matter of interpretation or disagreement with the judgment's substance. In this case, the plaintiffs' claims of 'falsehoods' were deemed misinterpretations rather than genuine clerical mistakes, thus failing to meet the criteria for correction under the slip rule.

Reopening Judgments

Once a judgment is delivered, it is generally final and binding. However, courts retain the authority to reopen cases under specific, stringent conditions. These conditions typically involve new evidence or a demonstrated mistake that significantly impacted the original judgment. The High Court requires compelling justification to exercise this authority, ensuring that judgments are not subject to arbitrary revisions.