The High Court dismissed Freddy Sherry’s challenge to decisions affecting the standardisation of 2020 Leaving Certificate calculated grades, but ordered the State respondents to pay part of his legal costs.
In a ruling on costs delivered on 26 March 2021, Mr Justice Charles Meenan awarded Sherry 65% of the costs of the substantive hearing, on a party-and-party basis, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. He also ordered the respondents to pay 50% of the costs of interlocutory motions heard in November 2020 and of the application for costs, also to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
The costs ruling followed the court’s judgment of 2 March 2021. That judgment had rejected Sherry’s challenge to the exclusion of school historical data from the standardisation model and the decision not to apply a “mapping tool” to national historical data. The court held that those decisions were not arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, irrational or unlawful, and did not breach his legitimate expectations. The costs ruling concluded with an order dismissing the application.
Sherry had argued that the calculated grades he received were unfairly lower than his school’s estimated marks and that grade inflation had put his preferred third-level courses beyond reach. His case was selected as a lead case addressing issues shared with numerous other applications. The judgment said nearly 70 separate proceedings had been initiated.
The respondents had offered to pay 50% of Sherry’s reasonable legal costs for both the main hearing and interlocutory applications, and accepted liability for all stenography and TrialView costs, amounting to just under €110,000. Sherry rejected the offer. In assessing costs, the judge cited the public importance and urgency of resolving the issues before the 2021 Leaving Certificate, and said it was reasonable to bring proceedings after commitments about the standardisation model had been breached.
The judge also weighed factors for the respondents. The legal principles were established, the statistical evidence did not establish material unfairness to Sherry in the grades awarded, and the State-funded transcripts had benefited his case. The judge said Sherry’s response to that point had been unreasonably dismissive. The breach of commitments was also mitigated by the need for the calculated grades system to have public and stakeholder support.
The ruling addressed costs only. It did not overturn the calculated grades decisions or grant the substantive relief Sherry had sought.