The High Court has directed the parties in a dispute over the CIÉ Superannuation Scheme 1951 (Amendment) Scheme 2002 to bear their own costs, including costs arising after the court’s earlier judgment. It also settled how the order recording that judgment should be framed.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey delivered the ruling on 26 August 2024, after a hearing on 29 July. The hearing followed an April judgment on questions about the scheme’s funding obligations and whether member benefits could be reduced.
The court had asked the parties to agree orders reflecting the April findings. They could not reach agreement. The committee representing the applicants had fallen below the quorum needed to act after resignations or retirements. The applicants’ solicitors said they could not take formal instructions from a committee that was not quorate. CIÉ denied responsibility for the loss of quorum and cited efforts to appoint new members.
The judge permitted counsel who had acted for the committee to make submissions without instructions, with CIÉ ultimately not opposing that arrangement. The court then considered competing draft orders and correspondence.
A central issue was the context to be included in the order about a review of contributions or benefits. The judge said the April judgment made clear that a review under rule 20(3) is triggered if CIÉ’s contribution under rule 20(1) exceeds 3.6 times the contributions payable by members during the relevant period. To avoid losing context in a shortened order, he directed that the full text of the court’s answers to the questions raised by both sides be included.
On costs, the committee argued that it had succeeded on the main funding issue and should receive its costs. CIÉ submitted that each side should bear its own costs, citing the nature of proceedings concerning the court’s supervisory role over trusts and trustees.
The judge described the overall result as a “score-draw”. The applicants succeeded broadly on whether CIÉ’s funding obligation required contributions to satisfy the statutory funding standard, but were largely unsuccessful on the question most closely tied to members’ interests: whether benefits could ever be reduced. The court did not decide definitively whether the statutory costs rule applied. It concluded that each side should bear its own costs, including all post-judgment matters.
The court accepted identified typographical corrections to the April judgment. The parties were directed to amend their draft order for the registrar’s approval, and were given liberty to apply if a specific difficulty arose.