Anonymized Summary of Ruling on Costs

Factual and Procedural Background

This ruling, delivered by Judge Dignam, concerns the question of costs arising from an appeal to the High Court by the Defendant from a judgment of the Circuit Court. The Plaintiff had previously obtained judgment in the Circuit Court in the amount of €59,742.32. On appeal the High Court awarded the Plaintiff €50,868. The substantive judgment in the appeal was delivered on 1 May 2025 and is recorded at [2025] IEHC 242; this present ruling (recorded at [2025] IEHC 517) deals solely with costs and must be read together with the substantive judgment. The provisional view indicated at the conclusion of the substantive judgment was that the Plaintiff was entitled to her costs despite the award in the High Court being lower than in the Circuit Court. Both parties were invited to make submissions on costs and did so; the judge has considered those submissions in making the ruling.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff should be regarded as "entirely successful" for the purposes of an award of costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, notwithstanding that the amount awarded on appeal in the High Court was lower than the Circuit Court award.
2. Whether, having regard to sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the Plaintiff should be awarded her costs in the High Court and in the Circuit Court (including reserved costs), or whether the court should exercise its discretion to order otherwise by reference to the conduct of the parties and the particular circumstances of the case.
3. Whether specific aspects of the Plaintiff's claim that were not pursued or were only partially successful (for example: allegations of being punched, claims of ongoing threats/harassment, certain items of special damages, or the duration of the hearing) should preclude or reduce an award of costs to the Plaintiff.
4. Whether the Defendant's section 26 application under the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 (alleging false or misleading evidence) — which was dismissed — affects the costs order.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff submitted that she established an entitlement to damages on the appeal and thereby was entitled to an award of costs. The judge found that the Plaintiff successfully established her entitlement to damages and defeated the Defendant's challenge to liability and the section 26 application.
• The Plaintiff maintained that she was entitled to costs in the High Court and in the Circuit Court (including any reserved costs), as indicated in her submissions on costs following the provisional view stated at the conclusion of the substantive judgment.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant contested that the Plaintiff was "entirely successful" because the High Court award was lower than the Circuit Court award and because the Plaintiff either did not pursue or did not succeed on certain aspects of the pleaded claim.
• The Defendant argued that, even if the Plaintiff was wholly successful, particular conduct and circumstances identified in section 169(1)(a)-(g) justified withholding or reducing an award of costs. Specific factors asserted by the Defendant included:
  • The allegation that the Plaintiff originally pleaded that the Defendant "punched" her, but that this aspect was not pursued at the hearing.
  • An allegation that the Plaintiff's Replies to Particulars and Updated Particulars contained claims of ongoing threats to the Plaintiff, her family and her staff, which the Defendant says were not supported in evidence.
  • Challenges to certain special damages items, such as a claim for security cameras billed to a limited liability company rather than to the Plaintiff personally, and claims for staff attendance at other court hearings.
  • A contention that medical costs claimed were significantly higher than the amount awarded.
  • A complaint that the hearing ran substantially longer than the time estimate (plaintiff's counsel estimated one day, but the hearing occupied two full days and two half days), allegedly because of two reports prepared by Witness O'Connell said to contain "bad facts."
• The Defendant also raised points in his written submissions which the judge noted went to the merits of the substantive decision rather than being strictly relevant to the question of costs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in a structured way, grounded in the statutory provisions and the guidance from the Court of Appeal in Chubb. The key steps in the reasoning were:

1. Statutory and rules framework: The judge began by identifying the governing rules — sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts — and reiterated that those provisions preserve an overall judicial discretion in relation to costs.
2. Chubb guidance: The judge referred to the statement of principles in Chubb (Judge Murray) and adopted them as the applicable approach: (i) the starting point is that an entirely successful party is entitled to costs, (ii) the court may "order otherwise" having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the parties, and (iii) the court must have regard to the specific matters listed in section 169(1)(a)-(g) when exercising its discretion.
3. Characterisation of how the appeal was run: The judge emphasised that the Defendant ran the appeal as a full appeal contesting liability and entitlement to damages, rather than limiting the challenge to quantum. The Circuit Court hearing had proceeded as an assessment following judgment in default of defence; the Defendant could have limited his challenge to quantum but instead sought to compel the Plaintiff to prove liability and entitlement. The court found that the Plaintiff successfully defeated that approach and established entitlement to damages on appeal.
4. Assessment of "entirely successful": The judge concluded that, notwithstanding that the High Court award was lower than the Circuit Court award, the Plaintiff was "entirely successful" in the appeal. The court rejected the defendant's position that a lower award on appeal necessarily means the appellant was not entirely successful; the judge described that approach as "entirely artificial" in the context of how the case was run.
5. Consideration of specific factors alleged by the Defendant: The judge analysed the specific matters the Defendant relied upon (e.g., the asserted failure to pursue a "punch" allegation, allegedly unsupported allegations of ongoing threats and harassment, disputed items of special damages, the length of the hearing and the contents of Witness O'Connell's reports). The judge found:
   • The "punch" allegation was included in the pleadings in terms that encompassed the conduct actually described in evidence (the Plaintiff's evidence that she banged her arm to dislodge the Defendant's hand was within the pleaded claim of being struck).
   • The particulars relating to threats and harassment, as pleaded in Replies to Particulars and Updated Particulars, referred to incidents and a period (January to July 2012) and to subsequent conduct in court; the pleadings could have been more precise but did not amount to a pleaded case that was not pursued.
   • Certain special damages claims were minor in the context of the overall claim, and some were not pursued once it was pointed out they were business costs rather than personal costs.
   • The length of the hearing could not fairly be parsed item-by-item; some of the additional time was attributable to the Defendant's cross-examination (including of Witness O'Connell) and to his argument about treating the appeal as a full appeal on liability as well as quantum. It was not unreasonable for the Plaintiff's counsel to estimate one day when the appeal was presented as against quantum only and no Circuit Court timing guidance was available. There was no evidence the Defendant objected to that estimate.
6. Conclusion on costs entitlement: Having considered all of the section 169(1)(a)-(g) factors and the circumstances in which the appeal was conducted, the judge concluded that the Plaintiff was entitled to her costs in the High Court and in the Circuit Court (including any reserved costs). The judge also stated that even if his view that the Plaintiff was "entirely successful" were incorrect, the exercise of discretion would nevertheless lead to the same result — an award of costs to the Plaintiff — because the Defendant had run the appeal in a way that justified that outcome.
7. Order concerning a transcript: The judge further ordered that the Defendant be supplied with a copy of the transcript of the DAR hearing on his undertaking to bear the costs of producing that transcript.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court ordered that the Plaintiff is entitled to her costs in the High Court and the Circuit Court, including any reserved costs. The court also ordered that the transcript of the DAR hearing be provided to the Defendant on his undertaking to bear the costs of supply.

Implications:

• The immediate practical consequence is that the Plaintiff will recover her costs in both courts (subject to the usual assessment process and any quantification rules), and the Defendant must bear the costs of supplying the DAR transcript if he requests it.
• The decision confirms that a reduction of the quantum awarded on appeal compared with the Circuit Court award does not automatically deprive a successful appellant of the status of being "entirely successful" for costs purposes where the appeal was run as a challenge to liability and entitlement and the appellant established entitlement to damages. The court emphasised that the assessment of "entirely successful" must be made in the round, having regard to how the case was conducted and to the s.169(1)(a)-(g) factors.
• The ruling does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond the application of the existing statutory discretion and the guidance in Chubb; it is a case-specific exercise of the court's discretion based on the facts and conduct in this litigation.

Ruling delivered by Judge Dignam on 3 October 2025. This summary is strictly derived from the provided opinion text and has been anonymized in accordance with the applicable instructions.