The Supreme Court has made no order for costs in an appeal by Patrick Kelly against University College Dublin (UCD), while leaving in place costs orders made in UCD’s favour in the Circuit Court and High Court.
The ruling, delivered on 1 May 2025, followed the dismissal of Mr Kelly’s appeal on 12 February. The appeal concerned whether the judge who heard it was disqualified because his son worked in a department of the firm then acting for UCD. The Court’s costs ruling did not revisit the dismissal.
UCD did not seek costs against Mr Kelly. It argued that the Court should follow the approach in Little v Chief Appeals Officer to an unsuccessful appeal raising an issue of general public importance, while retaining the earlier costs orders because those proceedings concerned a separate dispute about production of documents. The Court did not decide whether UCD should be treated like the State for the Little approach or whether the underlying case was a public-interest action; it said those questions did not need to be resolved for the costs ruling.
Mr Kelly sought costs or expenses from UCD and the two amici curiae, the Law Society of Ireland and the General Council of the Bar of Ireland. He also asked the Court to set aside the Circuit Court and High Court costs orders and to award him expenses incurred in those courts. The amici said they would bear their own costs and sought no costs from him.
The Court rejected Mr Kelly’s applications. It found no basis for a positive costs award against UCD, which had been successful in the appeal and had not sought costs. It also rejected his argument that the amici had become partisan, saying their submissions were objective and assisted the Court. The Court stated that an award against an amicus might be possible in exceptional circumstances, but did not decide that question.
The Court said the earlier document-production proceedings raised distinct issues and that UCD should retain the costs awarded in those courts. Its order was that no party would receive costs on the Supreme Court appeal and that it would not interfere with the Circuit Court and High Court costs orders in UCD’s favour.
The Court also considered alleged factual errors in its February judgment. It amended passages concerning UCD’s contention that Mr Kelly had been offered a course place, the history of a judge’s recusal, a complaint under the Judicial Council Act, family connections to UCD, and whether both parties accepted evidence was necessary. It declined to amend a passage about UCD’s offer of redacted documents. The Court said the alleged errors did not undermine the central reasoning of the appeal.