The High Court has decided that neither side should recover its legal costs following a successful DPP appeal concerning a District Court decision to strike out seven criminal charges against J.P.
The costs ruling follows an earlier judgment, DPP v JP [2026] IEHC 350, in which Mr Justice Conleth Bradley held that the District Court had made an error of law when it struck out the charges without making any further order.
The appeal had been brought by way of case stated, a procedure under which a lower court asks the High Court to determine a point of law arising from its decision.
The DPP argued that, having succeeded on that legal issue, the normal rule should apply and J.P. should pay its costs. Under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, a party who is entirely successful will generally recover costs unless the court considers that the circumstances justify a different result.
J.P.'s lawyers sought his costs, or alternatively no order as to costs. They argued that he had succeeded on much of the wider legal argument and that the issue which ultimately proved decisive — whether a contribution to the poor box was necessary before the District Court could strike out the charges — had not been raised before the District Judge.
The High Court rejected the suggestion that success or failure on individual strands of argument should determine the costs outcome. The judge noted that litigation commonly involves arguments being accepted and rejected on both sides.
However, he considered it significant that the poor-box issue had apparently not been canvassed in the District Court and that the prosecuting Garda inspector had taken a neutral position when the judge indicated an intention to strike out the charges.
The court therefore departed from the normal costs rule and made no order as to costs.
This judgment deals only with the legal costs of the High Court appeal. It does not revisit the substantive ruling in the earlier judgment or determine the underlying criminal allegations.