The High Court has ordered PBR Restaurants Limited, trading as Fish Shack Cafe, to pay Padraic Hanley’s costs of an appeal from a Labour Court determination, including the costs of his costs application.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2025, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger directed that the costs be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. She allowed either side to seek a different order on the costs application by re-entering the matter within two weeks.
The order followed the court’s substantive judgment of 19 November 2024, which upheld Mr Hanley’s appeal on a point of law, set aside the Labour Court determination and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing. The present judgment dealt only with costs.
Mr Hanley argued that, having succeeded in full, he was entitled to costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, which establishes the general principle that costs follow the cause. The company argued that Order 105, rule 7 of the Rules of the Superior Courts applied. That rule says costs are not allowed in proceedings under the order unless the court makes a “special order”.
Justice Bolger said the court had to start with section 169 and consider the rule alongside it. She concluded that the rule could qualify the statutory default but could not be considered in isolation from it. The court’s discretion to depart from the usual costs position also took account of the particular facts and circumstances of the appeal.
The judge said the appeal raised issues of some importance to Mr Hanley concerning protected disclosures, preliminary determinations by the Labour Court and the application of a Supreme Court decision to the determination of his employment status. It also raised issues of importance for how the Labour Court may handle preliminary issues and unfair dismissal claims involving alleged penalisation for making a protected disclosure.
Justice Bolger said she did not need to decide whether the case met the public-interest test or was equivalent in importance to earlier cases. Considering section 169 first and then the rule, she found it appropriate to award Mr Hanley the costs of the appeal.