Little v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant applied for Domiciliary Care Allowance (“DCA”) under s. 186C of the Social Welfare Act 2005. Her application failed and a subsequent request for revision under s. 317(1)(a) of the same Act was refused. In the High Court, Judge Owens held that s. 317(1)(a) could only be invoked where the new evidence showed an entitlement as of the date of the original decision. The Appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court on that substantive point was dismissed ([2023] IESC 25). The present judgment, delivered by Judge Murray on 19 November 2024, is confined to the costs of the proceedings. The Respondents initially obtained their costs in the High Court; the Appellant sought to overturn that order and also sought at least partial costs in the Supreme Court. During the appeal the Respondents conceded that no order for costs should be made against the Appellant.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, following the Thirty-Third Amendment and the enactment of ss. 168–169 Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (“LSRA”), the Supreme Court should modify its approach to costs where it has granted leave on the ground of “general public importance”.
2. If modification is required, whether it applies to all civil proceedings or only to public-law challenges to State action, and whether statutory environmental cost rules are relevant by analogy.
3. Whether the principles in Dunne v. Minister for the Environment [2008] 2 IR 775 remain good law.
4. If changes are necessary, whether they apply only in the Supreme Court or also in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• No order for costs should be made against her because the case was admitted as one of general public importance and involved issues likely to affect many claimants.
• Her personal financial hardship and caring responsibilities justified departure from the default “costs follow the event” rule.
• She sought, at minimum, a partial award of her own costs on the basis that the litigation clarified an important statutory provision.

Respondents' Arguments

• Financial hardship is not a factor expressly permitted by s. 169 LSRA and cannot, by itself, justify departure from the default rule.
• The Appellant’s case was weak; she could have submitted a fresh DCA application instead of pursuing litigation.
• Even if no costs were sought against her, she was not entitled to recover any part of her own costs because the Respondents were entirely successful.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Murray undertook a historical survey of the Irish courts’ jurisdiction over costs, tracing the evolution from the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1877 through the Rules of Court and culminating in ss. 168–169 LSRA. He concluded that the LSRA both confers and regulates the current cost-awarding power.

The Court synthesised modern case law into guiding principles for public-interest proceedings—defined as civil actions against the State raising a stateable point of law of general public importance. Key elements of the new framework are:

• Where the Supreme Court has granted leave because a case raises a matter of general public importance and subsequently affirms that characterisation, the starting point is that each side bears its own Supreme Court costs.
• The successful State party may still seek costs; the onus remains on the unsuccessful claimant (because of s. 169 LSRA) to justify departure from the default rule, but the Court will examine factors such as weakness of the claim, discrete personal advantage, conduct, and systemic importance.
• Financial hardship alone is not determinative, though it may reinforce other equities, particularly the deterrent effect on similarly situated litigants.
• Actual awards of costs in favour of an unsuccessful party remain “genuine rarities”, limited to foundational constitutional or European-law cases, conspicuous novelty, or situations where the litigant prevails on a significant discrete issue.
• The same analytical structure applies presumptively to High Court and Court of Appeal costs in the same litigation, subject to additional issues litigated in those courts.

Applying that framework, the Court noted that the Respondents had sensibly consented to set aside the High Court costs order and to make no application for costs in the Supreme Court. The Appellant’s request for affirmative costs failed because her legal argument was weak, the issue was not novel, and she pursued litigation rather than a fresh DCA application.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The High Court order for costs against the Appellant is set aside. No order as to costs is made in the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Appellant is not awarded any costs.

Implications: The judgment formalises an operative “starting point” that, in public-interest appeals raising issues of general public importance, unsuccessful claimants will ordinarily not face adverse costs unless the State actively seeks such an order and can justify it under s. 169 LSRA. The decision leaves Dunne intact but refines its application and provides detailed guidance for both appellate and first-instance courts. No new precedent on substantive social-welfare law was set; the impact is procedural, reshaping cost-risk calculations in future public-interest litigation.