Judgment: 2021-10-04 · Court archive

Supreme Court awards Kelly 50% of costs in dismissal case

The Court treated the costs dispute as part of the wider proceedings, after an earlier ruling quashed the Government’s dismissal decision but declined salary and pension relief.

{'name': 'The Supreme Court', 'source_name': 'AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH / THE SUPREME COURT'} · S: AP: IE: 2020: 000044

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Patrick J. Kelly (Applicant)
What

The Court treated the costs dispute as part of the wider proceedings, after an earlier ruling quashed the Government’s dismissal decision but declined salary and pension relief.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Killybegs
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The costs ruling, delivered on 4 October 2021, followed a hearing on 22 June to address possible further orders after the Court’s earlier decisions. The Court said the parties’ positions were sharply opposed. Kelly sought an order quashing his dismissal and argued that he should be treated as having lawfully held the office until his deemed retirement in 2016, with salary arrears and pension payments. The respondents argued that no further order should be made. If the Court quashed the decision, they said, the matter should be returned to the Government for a decision effective from 30 September 2009.

The Supreme Court has awarded Patrick J. Kelly 50% of his costs in a further ruling arising from his challenge to the Government’s 2009 decision to dismiss him as Harbour Master of Killybegs.

The costs ruling, delivered on 4 October 2021, followed a hearing on 22 June to address possible further orders after the Court’s earlier decisions. The Court said the parties’ positions were sharply opposed. Kelly sought an order quashing his dismissal and argued that he should be treated as having lawfully held the office until his deemed retirement in 2016, with salary arrears and pension payments. The respondents argued that no further order should be made. If the Court quashed the decision, they said, the matter should be returned to the Government for a decision effective from 30 September 2009.

On 15 September, a majority granted certiorari quashing the Government’s decision. The Court declined to order salary arrears, pension arrears or an ongoing pension. It said Kelly was to be treated as having left the civil service on 30 September 2009, but without having been dismissed. The ruling also recorded that the Court made observations on a question about pension entitlement based on service up to September 2009.

In the costs submissions, Kelly sought 50% of his costs, as in the substantive proceedings, while accepting that he could not recover the costs of an affidavit excluded by the case management judge. The respondents sought no costs order.

The Court said neither side had succeeded entirely on the further-relief issue. But it considered that hearing in the context of the full proceedings: Kelly had succeeded in part in his original claim, and the further hearing addressed a complex issue arising from the Court’s decisions. It concluded that the logic behind the earlier 50% costs award remained applicable and ordered that Kelly recover 50% of his costs. The costs of the excluded affidavit were not sought.

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