The High Court Divisional Court has awarded Joan Collins 75% of her costs, including reserved costs, after she lost a constitutional challenge concerning legislation that enabled State financial support for credit institutions.
In a judgment delivered on 27 February 2014, the court said the case was exceptional and justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the outcome. It ordered that her costs be taxed if the parties could not agree their amount. The court did not award her full costs.
The costs ruling followed the court’s substantive decision of 26 November 2013, which rejected Collins’s challenge to the authority for certain ministerial orders and to the constitutionality of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008. The costs judgment records that Collins had appealed the substantive decision to the Supreme Court. The Divisional Court said that appeal was a neutral consideration in deciding costs.
The constitutional challenge arose against the background of the 2010 recapitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank and the Educational Building Society through promissory notes issued by the Minister for Finance. The judgment records that the parties agreed there had been no separate vote in Dáil Éireann on the notes.
The court said one central question—whether constitutional rules on appropriation required a set limit on the sum appropriated—had not previously been judicially considered. It also pointed to the importance and novelty of the issues, the potential consequences for State finances, Collins’s position as a public representative, and the fact that she had brought the case without personal advantage. The court said the State had not pursued a standing objection so that the substantive questions could be determined.
The judgment discussed earlier decisions on costs in constitutional cases, including cases where losing plaintiffs received some or all of their costs because of the issues’ novelty or broader public importance. It concluded that Collins’s case warranted a significant share of her costs, while taking account of the fact that she had lost.
The 2014 judgment dealt with costs only. It did not reverse the court’s earlier rejection of Collins’s constitutional challenge; the judgment noted her right to appeal that decision.