Ononkewagbe & Anor v The Governor of the Dochas Centre & Anor, High Court of Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

Barton J.

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Ononkewagbe & Anor v. The Governor of the Dochas Centre & Anor

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicants, foreign nationals subject to deportation orders issued in 2008 which were not complied with, were arrested on 26th July 2016 at their residence in an accommodation centre pursuant to immigration legislation to effect these deportation orders. The first Applicant was arrested and detained in a detention centre, while the second Applicant, a minor, was taken into care by a state agency. The Applicants initiated proceedings under Article 40 of the Constitution challenging the lawfulness of their detention. The Court previously delivered a judgment on 10th August 2016 finding the detention lawful. The current proceedings concern applications for costs following that judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether there exist special circumstances in this case warranting a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.
Whether the Applicants’ failure to apply for legal aid under the Custody Issues Scheme at the commencement of proceedings affects the Court’s discretion on costs.
The interpretation and application of statutory provisions concerning the powers of arrest and entry into dwellings under s. 5(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 as substituted by s. 78 of the International Protection Act 2015.
The interpretation of ss. 12 and 13 of the Childcare Act 1991 in the context of the second Applicant being taken into care.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

The general rule that costs follow the event should apply as there are no good or sufficient reasons or special circumstances to depart from it.
The Applicants’ failure to apply for legal aid under the Custody Issues Scheme at the commencement of proceedings exposed them to the risk of adverse costs orders, which could have been avoided.
The point concerning the presence of other officers accompanying the arresting officer was without merit given existing statutory provisions and practice.
The Applicants’ legal arguments were unsuccessful and thus costs should follow the event.

Applicants' Arguments

There are special circumstances warranting departure from the general costs rule because the case involved legal issues of special and general public importance, qualifying it as a “test case.”
The case raised novel statutory interpretation issues regarding s. 5(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 and ss. 12 and 13 of the Childcare Act 1991.
The presence of other officers accompanying the arresting officer was unlawful as s. 5(11) contains no express provision allowing this.
The case’s outcome has general application benefiting the State and its law enforcement agencies in future cases.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
A.Q. v. The Minister for Health [2016] IEHC 556	Ambit of the Court’s discretion to award costs; discretion exercised based on special circumstances and interests of justice.	The Court adopted the principle that there is no fixed rule and discretion must be exercised in a reasoned fashion considering special circumstances.
Veolia Water U.K. Plc v. Fingal County Council (No. 2) [2007] 2 IR 81	Costs generally follow the event to ensure fairness and proper conduct of litigation.	Supported the principle that costs awards aim to balance access to justice and fairness between parties.
Godsil v. Ireland [2015] IESC 103	Reinforcement of the principle that costs follow the event in contested proceedings.	Used to affirm the general rule on costs and the constitutional right of access to courts.
Dunne v. Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government [2008] 2 IR 775	Requirement for reasoned discretion identifying factors justifying departure from the ordinary costs rule.	The Court applied this standard in assessing whether special circumstances justified departing from costs following the event.
Cork County Council v. Shackleton and Anor [2011] 1 IR 443	Definition and recognition of “test cases” as special circumstances for costs discretion.	The Court accepted the case qualified as a test case warranting departure from the ordinary costs rule.
O’Keeffe v. Hickey and Anor 2 I.R. 302	Adoption of the test case concept by the Supreme Court.	Supported the Court’s view that public importance of legal issues can justify special costs orders.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the general principle that costs follow the event but emphasized its discretion to depart from this rule when special circumstances exist. The Court examined the Applicants’ argument that the case involved novel legal questions of public importance, classifying it as a test case. The Court noted that the interpretation of s. 5(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 regarding the entitlement of officers to be accompanied during an arrest was considered for the first time and was not without merit. Similarly, the interpretation of ss. 12 and 13 of the Childcare Act 1991 raised issues of statutory construction with potential future application. The Court rejected the Respondents’ characterization of the Applicants’ arguments as baseless, recognizing the significance and novelty of the issues raised.

The Court also considered the Applicants’ failure to apply for legal aid under the Custody Issues Scheme but found this factor relevant though not determinative. Balancing these considerations, the Court concluded that the interests of justice warranted departing from the usual costs rule. It reasoned that awarding costs to the Applicants was justified given the public importance of the legal issues and the test case nature of the proceedings, while also noting the role and funding structure of the Respondents.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision was to make no order as to the Respondents’ costs and to allow the Applicants to recover half of their costs, including any reserved costs. These costs, considering the nature and purpose of the second Respondent as a State agency, are to be paid by the first Respondent when taxed and ascertained.

The decision directly affects the parties by relieving the Applicants from the usual burden of costs despite their unsuccessful challenge to detention, reflecting the Court’s recognition of the case as a test case involving novel legal questions of public importance. No new binding precedent on costs beyond the individual circumstances of this case was established.