Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
1.������ In M.S. (Afghanistan) v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2019] IEHC 477 , [2019] 7 JIC 0209 (Unreported, High Court, 2nd July, 2019), I decided to refer three questions to the CJEU.� The Advocate General delivered an opinion which suggested the determination of the proceedings in favour of the State (Case C-616/19, M.S. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (Court of Justice of the European Union, Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard �e, 3rd September, 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:648 )).
3.������ On foot of that judgment it has been agreed that the proceedings would be dismissed, but an issue has arisen regarding costs.� All parties applied for their costs albeit that the applicants, being the losing parties, majored more on the possibility of a portion of their costs.��
6.������ It is by no means clear that any change in focus was actually intended by the Oireachtas.� And there is a second independent problem: the position in relation to costs seems to have been also unintentionally complicated by the listing in s. 169(1)(a) to (g) of large numbers of factors which could apply in vast numbers of cases.� Experience in the brief period since s. 169 was commenced might suggest that it seems to have had the effect of encouraging applications that costs should not in fact follow the event.� I don�t think that such an outcome was the intention of the legislature.
7.������ It is not clear from anything I can see in the legislative history that it was ever suggested that it would change the principle that costs follow the event.� Rather the Act seems to have been designed to reinforce that principle.� The background includes the following.
8.������ The report of the Legal Costs Working Group in 2005 (at para. 2.1 of the executive summary), refers to �the absence of a convincing case for change� and says �given the paucity of research on this topic, the Group does not recommend abandoning the principles underpinning our system of costs recovery.��
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.