The Supreme Court made no order as to costs after allowing an appeal that brought Mary Munnelly’s proceedings to an end. It also set aside an earlier High Court order awarding Ms Munnelly the costs of a Circuit Court appeal, and made no costs order in that court.
In a ruling delivered electronically on 31 July 2024, the Court said the respondents were entirely successful in their appeal and would ordinarily be entitled to costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It decided that the circumstances justified departing from that general rule.
The dispute followed Ms Munnelly’s departure from City Learning Limited. She had brought proceedings against Margaret Hassett, Timothy Cremin and the company. The respondents argued that her claim was barred by the rule in Henderson v Henderson because of earlier proceedings she had brought against the company. Those proceedings were dismissed by the Circuit Court on 28 November 2018.
In 2019, the Circuit Court struck out Ms Munnelly’s later proceedings. The High Court reversed that decision on appeal, allowing the action to proceed on issues other than the defamation claim. It found that although some or all of those matters had been raised earlier, the Circuit Court had not determined them. The High Court also awarded Ms Munnelly her costs of that appeal.
The Supreme Court granted the respondents leave to appeal on questions about how the Henderson rule applied, including whether it concerned the order made or the way the decision was expressed, and whether it could be invoked by parties who were not involved in the earlier case. In its substantive decision on 29 November 2023, the Court allowed the appeal, holding that the rule applied and could be invoked by parties who had not been parties to the earlier proceedings.
The costs ruling said the appeal raised a question of general public importance that extended beyond the facts of Ms Munnelly’s case. Without that issue, the parties would have been bound by the statutory limit on appeals from the High Court, and Ms Munnelly could have pursued her proceedings and retained the High Court costs award, the Court said. It considered it harsh that she faced potential costs because the case raised an important legal question. Although she was represented under an ad hoc scheme and did not incur costs defending the Supreme Court appeal, the Court said an award covering a full legal team would affect her more severely than the earlier costs award would have affected the respondents.
The Court also noted that the case arose from a personal dispute between people who had worked together and may once have been friends, and that a costs award could aggravate ill feeling. It concluded that the appropriate order was no costs in the Supreme Court, the setting aside of Ms Munnelly’s High Court costs award, and no order as to costs in the High Court.