The Court of Appeal ruled that the respondents were entitled to the costs of two motions brought in an appeal by Arnaud D Gaultier, with the amounts to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
In a judgment delivered on 8 April 2021, Ms Justice Costello rejected Gaultier’s submission that it was premature to decide costs. She said his motion had been heard and dismissed, no relief remained pending, and the two motions’ costs could be ruled on.
The first named respondent, the Revenue Commissioners, had applied in February 2020 to have the appeal struck out because Gaultier had not filed written submissions in line with directions made in January 2018. The appeal was listed for hearing on 3 April 2020. On 6 March, Mr Justice McGovern made an Unless Order and adjourned the motion to 13 March, when Gaultier’s own motion was due to be heard.
Gaultier’s motion sought several forms of relief, including an adjournment based on objections concerning the court’s jurisdiction and membership, and leave to take up the digital audio recording of the case assignment to Mr Justice Noonan. The court dismissed the motion in a written judgment delivered on 7 April 2020. Justice Costello said Gaultier obtained no relief; two requested forms of relief could never have been granted, and the remaining reliefs were refused after a full hearing.
Gaultier subsequently delivered written submissions in compliance with the Unless Order. The Revenue Commissioners’ strike-out motion therefore did not proceed, as they were satisfied with the order and the delivery of the submissions. They nevertheless sought their costs.
Justice Costello applied the usual rule that costs follow the event, supported by section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. She said Gaultier had advanced no grounds for departing from that rule. The respondents were entitled to costs of his dismissed motion. The Revenue Commissioners were also entitled to costs of their motion: although it was not heard, they had substantially achieved its purpose of securing compliance with the earlier directions. Both costs awards were to be adjudicated in default of agreement.