Judgment: 2022-02-03 · Court archive

Supreme Court awards Baranya costs after protected-disclosure appeal

The Court ordered Rosderra to bear Mr Baranya’s costs in the High Court and Supreme Court, with the costs to be taxed if the parties cannot agree.

Supreme Court · S:AP:IE:2021:000027

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Tibor Baranya (Appellant)
  • Rosderra Irish Meats Group Limited (Respondent)
What

The Court ordered Rosderra to bear Mr Baranya’s costs in the High Court and Supreme Court, with the costs to be taxed if the parties cannot agree.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 15 September 2015

    The costs ruling, delivered on 3 February 2022, follows the Court’s substantive judgment of 1 December 2021. In that judgment, the Court held that an oral statement Mr Baranya made to his employer on 15 September 2015 was capable of being regarded as a protected disclosure under section 5 of the Protected Disclosure Act 2014. It allowed his appeal and sent the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on its merits by a different panel.

  • 7 August 2020

    The Court said that, in the ordinary course, the respondent should pay the taxed costs because Mr Baranya had prevailed on the preliminary issue. It considered a rule providing that costs are not allowed in appeals on a point of law from the Labour Court unless the Court makes a special order. The rule took effect on 7 August 2020, while the High Court proceedings had been heard and determined in January and February 2020; the High Court order was perfected in March 2021.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The costs ruling, delivered on 3 February 2022, follows the Court’s substantive judgment of 1 December 2021. In that judgment, the Court held that an oral statement Mr Baranya made to his employer on 15 September 2015 was capable of being regarded as a protected disclosure under section 5 of the Protected Disclosure Act 2014. It allowed his appeal and sent the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on its merits by a different panel.

The Supreme Court has ordered Rosderra Irish Meats Group Limited to pay Tibor Baranya’s costs in both the High Court and Supreme Court proceedings following his successful appeal on a preliminary issue about protected disclosures.

The costs ruling, delivered on 3 February 2022, follows the Court’s substantive judgment of 1 December 2021. In that judgment, the Court held that an oral statement Mr Baranya made to his employer on 15 September 2015 was capable of being regarded as a protected disclosure under section 5 of the Protected Disclosure Act 2014. It allowed his appeal and sent the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision on its merits by a different panel.

The merits remain undecided. The Supreme Court noted that whether Mr Baranya will ultimately succeed before the Labour Court is still an open question. The parties had agreed an order formally allowing the appeal and directing the remittal; costs were the remaining issue before the Court.

The Court said that, in the ordinary course, the respondent should pay the taxed costs because Mr Baranya had prevailed on the preliminary issue. It considered a rule providing that costs are not allowed in appeals on a point of law from the Labour Court unless the Court makes a special order. The rule took effect on 7 August 2020, while the High Court proceedings had been heard and determined in January and February 2020; the High Court order was perfected in March 2021.

Rosderra argued that there should be no costs order under the rule. Mr Baranya argued that the rule could not override the general statutory power to award costs and, alternatively, that it did not apply to proceedings begun before it took effect. The Supreme Court said resolving those questions would require further argument and a reserved judgment.

Instead, even assuming the rule applied, the Court made a special order for costs in Mr Baranya’s favour. It said he had raised an issue of some importance that had been resolved in his favour. His costs in the High Court and Supreme Court are to be taxed if the parties do not agree on them.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review