The High Court has ordered John Francis Lawless to pay the defendants’ costs of two unsuccessful applications, but reduced the costs otherwise payable to the second defendant, the Garda Commissioner, by 50% because of an earlier error in a Garda vetting report.
The costs ruling followed a judgment dated 27 November 2023 dismissing Mr Lawless’s applications for injunctive relief and to consolidate these proceedings with a separate case. The court’s January 18, 2024 judgment dealt only with the costs of those applications; it did not determine the amount payable to each defendant.
Mr Justice Kennedy said the defendants had been wholly successful on the applications and were presumptively entitled to their costs. The defendants submitted that the applications were unnecessary and had no reasonable basis. They also argued that Mr Lawless’s financial circumstances, status as a lay litigant and the broader public interest in Garda vetting did not justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event.
Mr Lawless argued against that rule, citing the second defendant’s acknowledged error in an initial vetting report and delay in correcting it. He also disputed the application of vetting procedures and said the litigation raised issues of general public importance concerning criminal convictions and employment.
The judge said the broader balance between disclosure of convictions, vetting and employment could be a matter of public interest, but found that these particular applications had no merit and did not raise issues of public importance. He disagreed with Mr Lawless’s challenge to his earlier decision, which remained in effect unless a higher court changed it.
However, the judge said it was unsatisfactory that the original vetting report was incorrect and that the error was not corrected more quickly. He noted that no evidence showed the error had affected the employment application’s outcome, and said it did not justify bringing the applications. Even so, he considered the error and its possible contribution to the litigation when assessing the parties’ conduct.
The court directed Mr Lawless to pay each defendant’s costs on a party-and-party basis, with a 50% reduction to the costs otherwise payable to the second defendant. The reduction was for this occasion alone. The amounts are to be determined by adjudication in the usual way if the parties cannot agree. The judge said the reduction did not affect Mr Lawless’s ability to pursue a damages claim, subject to the usual legal principles and evidential requirements.