O'Daly v Bus Eireann - Irish Bus & Anor (Unapproved)

             In the principal judgment in these personal injuries proceedings ( [2023] IECA 232 ), this Court reduced the award made in the High Court of �124,795.51 to �65,688.10.� The Court invited written submissions on the question of the proper allocation of the costs of the appeal and these have now been delivered.�

20.������ The specific difficulties in fixing a fair outcome as to costs in these circumstances were explained by the Supreme Court in MN v. SM (costs) [2005] IESC 30 , [2005] 4 IR 461 , 476.� There, the plaintiff was awarded the sum of �600,000 by the High Court for damages for injury caused by multiple sexual assaults.� On appeal by the defendant, the award was reduced to �350,000.

� 21.���� In the course of his judgment on costs, Geoghegan J. considered the dilemma arising where costs fall to be decided when a plaintiff is awarded damages in the High Court which are too high and are, therefore, reduced on appeal.� He observed that this will not usually arise from any fault on the part of the plaintiff and that it is a considerable hardship to the plaintiff if in addition to suffering a reduction in his award he then has to pay two sets of costs - one to the opposing lawyers and one to his own lawyers - out of the legitimate award.

22.������ On the other hand, Geoghegan J. noted, if the plaintiff were to be awarded his costs of the appeal despite the fact that he had suffered a reduction in damages, that may legitimately be viewed as an injustice to a defendant.� The reduction in damages which the defendant by his well-founded appeal has achieved is eaten away by his having to pay two sets of costs on the appeal.�

             In further discussing the relevance of �Calderbank� offers, Murray J. observed: