The Court of Appeal has ordered Denis Riordan to pay the Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal’s costs of his appeal, including the costs of written submissions and an oral hearing on costs.
The order followed the court’s earlier dismissal of Mr Riordan’s appeal against a High Court decision. That decision had dismissed his judicial review application seeking a declaration that no fee was payable for an appeal he brought to the tribunal under the Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Act 2009.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 12 January 2024, Mr Justice Allen said the tribunal had been entirely successful in the appeal and was presumptively entitled to its costs. Justices Binchy and Burns agreed.
The remaining issue was whether the court should depart from that usual position. Mr Riordan, who represented himself, argued in written submissions that the legislation was poorly drafted and that the State should bear both sides’ costs. He also said he should not be penalised for what he described as negligence by the Oireachtas. At the oral hearing on 20 December 2023, he asked the court to set aside the High Court costs order and make no order as to costs. He did not pursue his earlier request for his own expenses and outlay.
The tribunal submitted that the successful party should receive its costs and described Mr Riordan’s allegation against the Oireachtas as baseless. The court said it would not reopen the merits of the appeal as part of deciding costs. It also rejected the claim that the legislation’s drafting justified a different costs order, finding the relevant provisions clear in this case.
Mr Justice Allen noted that a lack of clarity in legislation can, in principle, be relevant to costs. He distinguished an earlier case in which the court had made no order as to costs because the legal issue was not straightforward and there were two legitimate views. He found those considerations did not apply to Mr Riordan’s appeal.
The court therefore ordered Mr Riordan to pay the tribunal’s costs of the appeal, including its costs submissions and the oral hearing on costs. The judgment dealt with costs following the substantive appeal; it did not alter the earlier dismissal of Mr Riordan’s judicial review application.