Judgment: 2025-10-03 · Court archive

High Court awards AB full legal costs despite reducing Circuit Court damages

High Court · [2025] IEHC 517

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • AB (Plaintiff)
  • MW (Defendant)
What

High Court awards AB full legal costs despite reducing Circuit Court damages

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Although the High Court ultimately awarded less than the Circuit Court, Dignam J held that AB was entirely successful when the litigation was viewed as a whole. She defeated the attempt to reopen liability, established her entitlement to damages and successfully resisted the section 26 application.

By Daniel Keane

The High Court has awarded a woman identified as AB her legal costs in both the High Court and Circuit Court despite reducing her damages award from €59,742.32 to €50,868 on appeal.

Mr Justice Conor Dignam ruled on costs following his substantive judgment delivered on May 1, 2025 in proceedings between AB and MW.

The original Circuit Court hearing had proceeded as an assessment of damages after AB obtained judgment in default of defence. MW then appealed to the High Court.

Rather than limiting the appeal to the appropriate amount of compensation, MW argued that the High Court should reconsider liability as well as damages. He sought to require AB to establish that he was liable and that she was entitled to any award at all.

MW also made an unsuccessful application under section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. That provision allows a personal injuries action to be dismissed where a plaintiff knowingly gives materially false or misleading evidence.

Although the High Court ultimately awarded less than the Circuit Court, Dignam J held that AB was entirely successful when the litigation was viewed as a whole. She defeated the attempt to reopen liability, established her entitlement to damages and successfully resisted the section 26 application.

MW argued that AB had also failed on, or abandoned, individual parts of her claim. These included certain special-damages claims relating to security cameras, staff attendance at court and part of her medical expenses.

The judge held that those were relatively minor matters and did not alter the overall result. He also rejected arguments that the length of the hearing should justify reducing AB's costs, noting that MW's own approach to the appeal and his cross-examination contributed to the hearing time.

The court ordered MW to pay AB's costs in both courts, including any costs previously reserved.

MW also sought a transcript of the digital audio recording of the hearing. The court directed that it be made available to him provided he paid the cost of obtaining it.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review