The Supreme Court has made no order for costs against Kevin Tracey after he unsuccessfully appealed the refusal of judicial review arising from District Court proceedings.
The ruling concerned costs only. The substantive appeal had already been decided against Tracey, with the Supreme Court holding that the High Court judge had not erred in refusing judicial review.
Mr Justice John MacMenamin recorded that Tracey's application was, at one level, premature because he had not shown that he would suffer an injustice at a District Court hearing which had yet to take place before Judge Anderson.
The Supreme Court had also concluded that Tracey had not demonstrated any detriment arising from an earlier hearing before District Judge Hugh O'Donnell. There was no basis, the court held, for his contention that his constitutional right to a fair trial had been affected by either hearing.
The respondents therefore succeeded both at first instance and on appeal. Ordinarily, that could have exposed Tracey to an order requiring him to pay the respondents' legal costs in both courts.
The Supreme Court noted that costs in judicial review litigation could run into thousands of euro. However, counsel for the respondents informed the court that they were not seeking their costs.
Mr Justice MacMenamin described that position as a fair resolution. He therefore made no order as to costs in either the High Court proceedings or the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The ruling also referred to separate costs decisions delivered the same day in two other proceedings brought by Tracey involving District Court judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions.