Hanley v PBR Restaurants Ltd [Trading as Fish Shack Cafe] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed a determination of the Labour Court, which was upheld by the High Court on a point of law. The Labour Court's determination was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing. Subsequently, the Appellant applied for an order awarding costs of the appeal pursuant to section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. The Respondent opposed the costs application, relying on Order 105, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which provides that no costs shall be allowed in appeals from the Labour Court unless the Court makes a special order. The dispute concerns the interaction between the statutory provision (s. 169) and the procedural rule (Order 105, r. 7) governing costs in appeals from the Labour Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the interaction between section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 105, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts concerning costs in appeals from the Labour Court?
2. What are the tests for making a "special order" allowing costs under Order 105, rule 7?
3. What role, if any, does section 169 play in determining costs in proceedings governed by Order 105, rule 7?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant relies on section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, which provides that the successful party in civil proceedings is entitled to costs, subject to exceptions not applicable here.
• The Appellant contends that, having succeeded in full on appeal, he is entitled to costs as a matter of principle.
• The Appellant argues that the general statutory provisions (ss. 168 and 169) should prevail over the procedural rule.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submits that the default position under Order 105, rule 7 applies, meaning no costs are allowed in appeals from the Labour Court unless the Court makes a special order.
• The Respondent emphasizes the "special nature" of appeals from the Labour Court to justify the costs rule.
• The Respondent disputes that the Appellant's case engaged a public interest sufficient to justify a special order for costs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by acknowledging the statutory default rule in section 169 that the successful party is entitled to costs, subject to exceptions not applicable here. However, Order 105, rule 7 imposes a procedural rule that no costs shall be allowed in appeals from the Labour Court unless a special order is made. The Court analyzed prior case law demonstrating that this rule was intended to replicate the no-costs regime of the Labour Court, which lacks jurisdiction to award costs, while allowing the High Court discretion to make special orders.

The Court emphasized that rules of court cannot override or amend statutory provisions and that statutory provisions must be the starting point in determining costs. The procedural rule is a qualification to the statutory default, not a replacement. Therefore, the Court must consider both section 169 and the rule together.

Precedents such as Power v. HSE and Baranya show that costs may be awarded by special order where the appeal raises issues of public or some importance, even if the rule would otherwise disallow costs. The Court noted that while the public interest threshold is high, the Appellant raised an issue of some importance relating to protected disclosures and employment law, with implications for future cases.

The Court concluded that awarding costs was appropriate here, not necessarily because the case met the high public interest threshold, but because the statutory provision and procedural rule considered together support such an order. The Court ordered the Respondent to pay the Appellant's costs of the appeal, including costs of the costs application, subject to adjudication if not agreed.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision is to ORDER the Respondent to pay the Appellant's costs of the appeal, including the costs of the application for those costs. The costs are to be assessed in default of agreement, with liberty granted to either party to seek a different order within two weeks.

This decision clarifies that in appeals from the Labour Court, section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 remains the starting point for costs decisions, and Order 105, rule 7 operates as a qualification requiring a special order for costs to be awarded. The ruling affirms the Court's discretion to award costs where the circumstances justify departing from the default no-costs position under the rule. No new legal precedent is established beyond applying existing principles to the facts of this case.