The Supreme Court has ruled that each side should bear its own costs after Lacramioara Amariei lost an appeal concerning the remedies available to people challenging social welfare decisions.
The costs ruling, dated May 12, 2026, follows the court's March 25 dismissal of Amariei's substantive appeal. The Supreme Court had held that she should have exhausted an alternative review procedure under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 before pursuing judicial review.
Despite losing, Amariei asked the court to award her all or part of her legal costs against the State. She argued that the case had exposed uncertainty of wider importance about how section 318 operated and had clarified the appellate structure for social welfare claimants.
She pointed in particular to regulations introduced in 2024 which expressly allowed the Chief Appeals Officer to nominate an Appeals Officer to conduct a review and make a recommendation under section 318. She also argued that State websites had subsequently been updated to explain the procedure more clearly.
The State disputed the significance of those developments but did not seek its own costs. It had already consented in the Court of Appeal to each side bearing its own costs there and to replacing an earlier High Court costs order with no order as to costs.
The Supreme Court accepted that the appeal concerned a matter of general public importance and had brought clarity to the section 318 procedure. However, it said an unsuccessful public-interest litigant will receive costs only in genuinely rare cases involving a clear public interest on a fundamental or far-reaching legal issue.
The court found Amariei's case did not meet that higher threshold. It also noted that she had brought the proceedings to advance her own position and had continued despite being told at an early stage that an alternative remedy was available.
The appeal remained dismissed, with no order for Supreme Court costs.