The High Court awarded the National Museum of Ireland its costs of an appeal over a worker’s employment status, reduced by 25% because a substantial part of the hearing was spent on an argument that failed. The Court also ordered the Museum to pay 25% of the notice party’s costs.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Murphy on 27 March 2017, concerned costs following an earlier judgment. In that judgment, the Court set aside the Minister for Social Protection’s decision on the notice party’s employment status and remitted the issue to the Department’s SCOPE section for further consideration.
The Museum had challenged the appeals officer’s decision that the notice party was in insurable employment for most of her time working at the Museum. It argued, among other things, that a prior rights commissioner decision that she was a contractor made the issue res judicata. The Court had rejected that argument, finding it did not arise on the facts, but upheld the Museum’s alternative challenges based on fair procedures and the right to address material evidence.
In the costs judgment, the Court said the usual rule was that costs follow the event. It rejected the suggestion that the fact that both the Museum and the Minister were state bodies was a special circumstance justifying a different approach. The Court said any alternative system for resolving disputes between state agencies was a matter for the executive and legislature.
The Court found that the Museum had succeeded on the core issue: the lawfulness of the appeals officer’s decision. It was therefore entitled to its costs. However, 90 minutes of the 370-minute hearing had been devoted to the res judicata issue, and the Museum had abandoned 17 of its 42 pleaded grounds on the first morning. The Court concluded that the unsuccessful argument had materially affected the overall costs and reduced the Museum’s award by 25%.
The notice party had been joined by the Museum and sought costs, saying her participation helped secure a prompt hearing and protect her position. The Court considered that the res judicata argument could have fixed her with the earlier contractor finding and prevented her from pursuing a claim to insurable employment. It found her participation appropriate and necessary and awarded her 25% of her costs, payable by the Museum.
The costs ruling did not decide the notice party’s employment status. The underlying issue had been remitted for further consideration.