The Court of Appeal ordered Charles McGuinness to pay the Property Registration Authority of Ireland’s (PRAI) costs of his unsuccessful appeal, including the costs of his application concerning costs. It also stayed that costs order pending a Supreme Court appeal, provided the appeal is made within 28 days of the order being perfected.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Murray on 10 March 2021, addressed four requests by McGuinness after the court’s 5 February judgment rejected his arguments against the High Court’s refusal to direct cancellation of judgment mortgage entries on properties he owned. Justices Costello and Donnelly agreed with the ruling.
McGuinness argued that no appeal costs should be awarded against him. He cited costs imposed in the High Court, including the cost of obtaining an affidavit containing hearsay; the PRAI’s decision not to refer the matter to the High Court; a delay of more than three and a half years between his July 2015 correspondence and a January 2019 letter recording an intention to refuse his application; and the second respondent’s non-participation in the proceedings.
Murray said McGuinness did not dispute that the PRAI had been entirely successful in the appeal. Under section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the PRAI was presumptively entitled to its costs. The judge concluded that the matters raised did not displace that entitlement, adding that the PRAI had no legal obligation to refer the matter to the High Court. The costs order would also cover the costs of the application, following *Allied Irish Banks v Higgins* [2020] IECA 339.
The court refused McGuinness’s request to stay the order until final determination of the matter, including any determination by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Murray noted that the Court of Appeal had made no reference to that court. He separately granted a stay of the costs order pending a Supreme Court appeal, subject to the 28-day condition.
The court also refused McGuinness access to the digital audio recording (DAR) of the appeal hearing. Murray said he had given no reason why the recording was needed and that it was neither necessary nor evidently relevant to a possible application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court or any subsequent appeal.