The High Court has ordered Word Perfect Translation Services Limited to pay 50% of the State’s legal costs after finding that the case could have been resolved more efficiently. The State had successfully defended the company’s challenge to a tender for Irish translation services, but the court said it should have sought an early ruling on whether Word Perfect was eligible to bring the challenge.
In a costs judgment delivered on 7 April 2022, Mr Justice Twomey said the State should have applied under Order 84A, rule 6(2) to have the eligibility question dealt with as a preliminary issue. The State had instead proceeded to a hearing on that question and three substantive challenges to the tender. The court decided the eligibility issue in the State’s favour, so it did not need to determine the substantive claims.
Word Perfect argued that it should pay only about 20% of the State’s costs, saying eligibility took up roughly one fifth of the proceedings and the other issues involved unnecessary expense, including discovery and expert evidence. The State sought all its costs, relying on its complete success in having the challenge dismissed.
The judge said the costs regime requires courts to consider how both parties conducted proceedings, including whether they pursued a cost-effective course. He estimated that eligibility accounted for about 20% of the costs and time. But he declined to limit the State to that share because it had won the issue that disposed of the case.
The court began with a 40% share to recognise the State’s success, increased that to 45% to allow for the benefit of hindsight when assessing its decision not to seek an early ruling, and then raised it to 50% because Word Perfect had also failed to propose that the eligibility issue be determined first. The judge said there was no basis to adjust the percentage over mediation: neither party proposed it, and no court invitation to mediate had been made.
The order requires Word Perfect to pay half of the State’s legal costs. The amount is to be agreed by the parties or, if they cannot agree, adjudicated by the Legal Costs Adjudicator. The judgment did not decide the legality of the tender’s price floor, supplier turnover threshold or contract-allocation method.