The High Court awarded B and C the costs of their applications for leave to bring judicial review proceedings arising from their school expulsions. It also awarded C the costs of his costs application. The court left open whether B should receive the costs of his costs application, inviting the parties to resolve the issue or return for brief argument.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 26 May 2020, addressed costs following earlier injunction proceedings and appeals involving the Board of Management of St Q’s College. The court had previously granted injunctive relief in both cases. The Court of Appeal later left the High Court’s order in C’s case undisturbed, with a limited qualification to the High Court’s judgment. The appeal in B’s case was favourable to him, and he had been awarded costs both in the High Court and on appeal.
B sought the costs of his leave application, judicial review proceedings and costs application. C sought the costs of his leave application and costs application. The judge said both applicants had sent warning letters seeking their return to school pending appeals before going to court, giving the parties opportunities to resolve matters. He found nothing untoward in either applicant’s conduct in that respect.
The court also reviewed the different paths of the appeals. B’s appeal under section 29 was successful. He argued that the judicial review proceedings had become moot, but the Board continued its appeal to the Court of Appeal. C did not succeed in his section 29 appeal; his judicial review case later settled, and an earlier section 29 decision was quashed by consent. A second appeal hearing also went against C. The judgment did not determine any further challenge to that later decision.
In deciding the costs applications, the judge said both applicants had essentially won in the High Court and Court of Appeal, and identified the injunctions sought in the proceedings as the event to which costs should follow. He granted both applicants the costs of their leave applications because those applications grounded the proceedings in which they obtained injunctions.
The order did not award B the costs of the judicial review proceedings or decide his costs-of-costs application. The latter issue was left open for agreement or further argument.