The High Court has made no order as to costs in a withdrawn judicial review brought by Jason Gilliland over the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland’s refusal to meet an award arising from the collapse of Setanta Insurance.
Mr Justice MacGrath ruled on 30 November 2018 that the proceedings had become moot after the Supreme Court decided in separate proceedings that the MIBI Agreements did not make the bureau liable for claims where an insurer was insolvent. The High Court did not decide the substantive issues in Mr Gilliland’s case.
Mr Gilliland was injured in a road traffic accident on 27 October 2012. The driver was insured by Setanta. Following an assessment by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, an order to pay €36,290 was made against the policyholder on 8 May 2014. Setanta had entered liquidation on 30 April 2014, and the award went unpaid.
Mr Gilliland asked the MIBI to satisfy the order under its agreements. It declined, saying it was not liable. He then sought judicial review of the respondents’ decisions, including a declaration that they were unlawful. The proceedings were later put on hold by consent while the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court considered related proceedings brought by the Accountant of the Courts of Justice. The Supreme Court rejected the claim against the MIBI in May 2017.
Mr Gilliland sought costs from the MIBI, arguing that his case raised issues of public importance affecting about 1,750 outstanding claims and that it was a substantial, novel challenge. The MIBI opposed the application, saying the case had become moot because of an external event and that the proceedings had not been determined. It did not seek costs from Mr Gilliland. He had been paid in full by the time of the costs application, the judgment records.
The judge found no determination of the substantive issues that could establish an “event” directing costs one way or the other. He also found that the evidence before him did not establish that Mr Gilliland’s proceedings had prompted the Accountant’s case; any connection was tenuous. The Supreme Court outcome was an external factor outside the parties’ control, rendering the judicial review moot.
The judge was not satisfied that special circumstances justified awarding costs to Mr Gilliland. He directed that there be no order as to costs. The parties had agreed there would be no costs order between Mr Gilliland and the second to fifth respondents.