M v Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors, U v Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Unapproved)

This Court delivered its judgment (�the principal judgment�) on 12 April 2021, dismissing the appellants� appeals from a judgment and Orders of Humphreys J. dated 17 April 2018.� At para. 121 of the principal judgment the Court stated:

�The appellants have not succeeded in these appeals. Accordingly, it follows that the Minister should be entitled to her costs. If, however, either party wishes to seek some different costs order to that proposed they should so indicate to the Court of Appeal Office within twenty one days of the receipt of the electronic delivery of this judgment, and a costs hearing will be scheduled. If no indication is received within the twenty-one-day period, the order of the Court, including the proposed costs order, will be drawn and perfected.�

Accordingly, the Minister�s position is that the proposal set out at para. 121 of the principal judgment should apply, namely that the costs of the appeals should be granted against the appellants in each case, to include reserved costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement. It is also submitted that the High Court award of costs to the Minister should stand in each case.

The rule in Order 99, r.1(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts (�RSC�) that �[t]he costs of every issue of fact or law raised upon a claim or counterclaim shall, unless otherwise ordered, follow the event � is now reflected in ss.168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (�the 2015 Act�). A list of factors by reference to which the Court may depart from the normal rule is set out in s.169(1). Section 169(1) provides as follows:

�169(1) A party who is entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to an award of costs against a party who is not successful in those proceedings, unless the court orders otherwise, having regard to the particular nature and circumstances of the case, and the conduct of the proceedings by the parties, including-