The Court of Appeal has ordered Kevin Tracey, trading as Engineering Design and Management, to pay the costs of his appeal after dismissing it in an earlier judgment.
In a costs ruling delivered on 25 May 2023, the court said the respondents were entitled to their appeal costs. It had provisionally expressed that view in its principal judgment, [2023] IECA 106, and gave Tracey an opportunity to submit reasons for a different order. The respondents also made submissions.
Tracey’s submissions sought to revisit the appeal’s merits, complained of bias against a member of the panel and asked for the judgment to be set aside. The court said those matters were not relevant to the only issue before it, which was costs. It also said his statement that he should not face costs for seeking his constitutional right to a fair trial, without more, did not assist it in allocating costs.
The respondents argued that they had been entirely successful, engaging the usual costs position under section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. They also submitted that Tracey had continued with the appeal despite being alerted to case law indicating it was likely to be unstateable, and despite a trial judge having modified the case-management order under appeal before the appeal hearing, making the appeal largely moot.
The Court of Appeal said the respondents’ submissions were well-founded and found no circumstance justifying departure from the normal rule. It ordered that they were entitled to the costs of the appeal. The ruling addressed costs only; it did not reconsider the dismissed appeal or determine Tracey’s complaints about bias.