The Supreme Court has ordered Nehall Singh to pay Costello Transport Limited’s reasonable costs of opposing his unsuccessful application for leave to appeal, including the costs of an oral hearing. The court said it intended to refer the documents and materials before it to the Garda Commissioner for inquiries into whether criminal activity may have taken place in connection with the filing of the application.
The ruling concerns costs only. The Supreme Court had refused leave to appeal in March 2016. In this judgment, delivered on 15 December 2016, it addressed whether Singh was responsible for the subsequent leave application and whether he should pay Costello Transport’s costs.
The application named Singh as applicant and bore a signature purporting to be his. In April 2016, he told the court he had not brought, prosecuted or attempted to prosecute proceedings before it. The court asked him to explain the apparent inconsistency and whether the application and related communications had been made with his knowledge or authority. It also invited an affidavit if he denied involvement.
The court described Singh’s response as unsatisfactory and said he did not answer its questions. He did not attend the costs hearing on 13 December 2016. The court said he had been given adequate opportunities to explain why he should not be treated as a party to the leave application or why costs should not be awarded against him.
The court concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the inference that Singh had expressly or implicitly authorised the application. It said that, if the application had been filed without his authority, he could not properly be treated as a party and costs could not be ordered against him. But, given the material identified by the Registrar and Singh’s failure to provide an explanation, the court found no basis to exclude him from responsibility as the named party.
Under the applicable practice direction, costs of opposing an unsuccessful leave application would normally be awarded to the respondent, subject to the court’s discretion. The court found no good reason to depart from that position and ordered Singh to pay Costello Transport’s reasonable costs, including those of the oral hearing, which it said had been necessary because of his correspondence.
The court said it remained unclear how an application purporting to be Singh’s had been filed despite his denial of involvement. It stated its intention to refer the materials to the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána for inquiries into whether there was evidence of criminal activity. The judgment does not state that any criminal activity occurred or that an investigation had begun.