The Supreme Court made no order as to the costs of an appeal in which it had reduced the damages awarded to a woman suing Bus Átha Cliath – Dublin Bus and increased her share of responsibility for her injuries.
In a judgment delivered on 22 January 2003, Denham J. said the court would not interfere with the High Court’s costs order. The defendant had not appealed that order. She also concluded that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was not entitled to her costs of the Supreme Court appeal, but that the defendant should not receive its appeal costs either.
The High Court had found the bus operator negligent and the plaintiff contributorily negligent, apportioning fault 75 per cent to the defendant and 25 per cent to the plaintiff. It assessed total damages at £172,500 and ordered the defendant to pay £129,375, together with the plaintiff’s costs of the action.
The Supreme Court’s earlier judgments, delivered on 11 December 2002, allowed the defendant’s appeal. They set the plaintiff’s contributory negligence at 50 per cent and reduced total damages to £90,000, leaving her entitled to £45,000.
At the costs hearing, the defendant argued that it had succeeded on damages and contributory negligence, and sought appeal costs. It also asked the court to reduce or set off the High Court costs against damages. The plaintiff argued that the appeal had not challenged the High Court costs order and that the defendant was precluded from seeking to change it.
Denham J. said the appeal had produced a mixed result: the defendant remained liable, but succeeded in overturning the special damages claim, reducing future pain-and-suffering damages and changing the contributory-negligence apportionment. She also referred to findings in both appeal judgments that the plaintiff lacked credibility and had deliberately exaggerated her symptoms.
The judge said that conduct was relevant to costs. However, the alleged abuse of process had not been specifically argued in the High Court, where no such finding had been made. Taking the circumstances together, she declined to award the defendant its costs against the plaintiff. She stressed that the decision was particular to this case and that costs in other cases involving serious exaggeration should be considered on their own facts.
The ruling addressed costs only. It left the High Court costs order undisturbed and made no order as to costs in the Supreme Court.