The Court of Appeal has ordered Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd to pay the Data Protection Commission’s costs of two motions seeking to adjourn or stay proceedings until the determination of separate WhatsApp litigation.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Anthony Collins on 12 May 2025, resolves the costs question left open after the court allowed the DPC’s appeals on 13 March 2025. The appeals overturned High Court orders made on 30 May 2024 and dismissed Meta’s applications, which had been filed on 10 July 2023.
The court said the parties agreed that costs were governed by section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It provides that a party entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to costs unless the court orders otherwise, taking account of the case’s circumstances and the parties’ conduct. The court also cited a rule requiring the Court of Appeal to decide costs on interlocutory applications unless it could not do so justly.
Meta accepted that the DPC had defeated the motions but argued that the regulator had lost a distinct issue in the High Court by advocating that the proceedings be handled in stages, or “modularised”. The court rejected that argument. It said the motions sought to stay the entire proceedings, while the DPC had apparently been prepared to agree to defer only certain issues. The question of modularisation therefore fell within the central dispute over whether a stay should be ordered, rather than constituting a separate issue.
The court found that the DPC was “entirely successful” because it had resisted the orders Meta sought. It also rejected Meta’s objections based on the DPC’s conduct and the reasonableness of pursuing the motions. The judgment said there was no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable behaviour, and that the DPC had consistently opposed a stay of the entire proceedings.
The final order entitles the DPC to recover costs, including any reserved costs, in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal relating to the two motions. The ruling concerns those interlocutory applications and their costs; it does not determine the underlying challenge to the DPC’s decision.