A Supreme Court judge has argued that Revenue should not be required to pay any part of the costs incurred by two appellants in unsuccessful challenges to tax debt claims, and that they should bear the costs of their appeal.
Maurice Collins J gave the separate judgment on 7 October 2026, saying he could not support the costs orders proposed by Hogan J. The source does not set out the majority’s final costs orders. Collins J said Revenue had indicated it was willing to bear its own costs before the Supreme Court, and he would therefore make no order in relation to the costs of the appeal.
The proceedings concerned Revenue’s effort to recover unpaid tax. Collins J said the assessments, dating from 2015 and relating mainly to rental income and capital gains on a property portfolio, had become final after unsuccessful appeals to the Appeals Commissioners and an unsuccessful attempt to require them to state a case to the High Court. Revenue issued final demands in October 2021, but no payment followed.
The appellants’ defence challenged the lawfulness of fee arrangements between Revenue and its solicitors. Collins J described the defence as unmeritorious and said the appellants had no substantive defence to the tax claims. The challenge failed in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. He also criticised the appellants for maintaining fraud allegations against Revenue, which earlier judgments had described as unstateable and hopeless. Collins J said the allegations had been pursued while the appellants were legally represented.
The judge disagreed with treating the proceedings as public interest litigation for costs purposes. He said the challenge to the fee arrangements could have arisen in a private debt claim, and that the appellants had pursued it for personal advantage rather than to vindicate a public right. Even if the case qualified as public interest proceedings, he said, that would not itself justify departing from the statutory presumption that the successful party should receive its costs.
Collins J acknowledged that the appeal raised issues of general importance, including conditional uplift fees and “no foal no fee” arrangements. But he considered the systemic importance of those issues insufficient to outweigh the appellants’ conduct and the ordinary costs rules. He said he saw no basis to disturb the High Court and Court of Appeal costs orders against them.
This is Collins J’s view on costs, not a statement of the Supreme Court majority’s final order. The judgment identifies Hogan J’s proposed orders and records Collins J’s disagreement, but the supplied extract does not include the majority’s disposition.