Law Society of Ireland v Mc Sweeney (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a costs hearing arising from the principal judgment (DPP v JP [2026] IEHC 350). The appeal was by way of case stated. The operative statutory framework for costs was s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and O. 99, rr. 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (as amended). The principal judgment held that it was an error of law for the District Judge to strike out simpliciter seven charges on 12 March 2025. The Appellant sought an award of costs; the Respondent opposed an adverse costs order. The costs judgment was delivered by Judge Bradley on 19 June 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, having been entirely successful on the question of law in the case stated, the Appellant is entitled to an award of costs under s. 169(1) of the 2015 Act.
2. Whether the court should exercise the discretion in s. 169(1) to make a different order having regard to the particular nature and circumstances of the case and the matters listed at ss. 169(1)(a)–(g).
3. Whether the failure to raise or canvass a contribution to the poor box before the District Judge affects the exercise of the court's discretion on costs.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney O'Neill submitted that the Appellant was entirely successful on the question of law raised in the appeal by way of case stated and therefore presumptively entitled to costs under s. 169(1).

Respondent's Arguments

• Attorney McDonagh submitted that the Respondent had prevailed on the majority of arguments raised (asserted as "90%") and advanced that the custody issues scheme was not available in an appeal by way of case stated; the Respondent had not received legal aid in the District Court.
• It was argued that the case stated did not mention any requirement to contribute to the poor box, which, if raised earlier, would likely have altered the District Court outcome and rendered the appeal otiose.
• The Respondent complained of short notice of the Appellant's written submissions and asserted those submissions suggested the Appellant was effectively appealing leniency rather than raising a pure legal/jurisdictional point (including submissions challenging the authority of Ryan).
• In the alternative, the Respondent sought that there be no order as to costs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the statutory default that costs follow the event (s. 169(1) of the 2015 Act and O. 99 RSC 1986), but observed the discretion to order otherwise by reference to ss. 169(1)(a)–(g). The Appellant's success on the legal question established a presumptive entitlement to costs. The court examined the Respondent's contentions that (i) the Respondent had prevailed on most arguments, (ii) the case stated omitted any reference to a poor box contribution as a jurisdictional requirement, and (iii) the Appellant's written submissions were provided on a short timetable and suggested an appeal against leniency.

Judge Bradley noted that the issue of a contribution to the poor box did not appear to have been raised before the District Judge and that the Inspector adopted a neutral stance when the District Judge indicated an intention to strike out. The court emphasised that in litigation submissions ebb and flow and that both parties had aspects of their submissions not accepted by the principal judgment. The parties also differed on the proper ratio of Ryan and on the utility of remittal. Having considered the statutory factors and the particular circumstances, the court exercised its discretion under s. 169(1) to make no order as to costs.

Holding and Implications

NO ORDER AS TO COSTS

Direct effect: No party is awarded costs in this appeal by way of case stated; neither the Appellant nor the Respondent will recover costs from the other in respect of this proceeding. The judgment makes no broader novel precedent on costs; it applies the statutory discretion under s. 169(1) to the facts of this case.