The Supreme Court has decided that neither side should recover the costs of an appeal concerning the purchase of the fee simple of a property at 1B “Anneville”, Coolgarten Park, Magazine Road in Cork city.
In a ruling delivered on 18 February 2026, the court departed from the normal rule that the successful party receives its costs because of the unusual way the appeal had been conducted.
The underlying dispute concerned an application by Charles Crowley and Raymond Crowley, as sub-lessees, to purchase the fee simple under the Landlord and Tenant ground-rents legislation. Barry Sheehan, as head lessee, opposed the application.
The Crowleys succeeded before the County Registrar, the Circuit Court and the High Court. The High Court had held, among other things, that a statutory restriction in section 16(2)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 applied only to commercial leases.
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in light of that interpretation. However, immediately before the hearing both sides substantially changed positions they had maintained throughout the earlier proceedings.
The Crowleys abandoned their argument that section 16(2)(f) did not apply to residential leases. Sheehan, meanwhile, conceded that a lease did not need to contain a covenant to erect permanent buildings in order to qualify under the 1978 Act.
In its earlier substantive judgment of 5 February 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed Sheehan's appeal, holding that it would be unfair to allow a party to abandon the issue on which leave had been granted and then secure a different outcome on a new argument.
On costs, the court held that the Crowleys could not rely simply on having won the appeal. Their own abandoned interpretation had been central to why the case reached the Supreme Court in the first place.
Given the last-minute changes by both sides, the court ordered that each side bear its own appeal costs.