The High Court has ordered the defendants to pay Thomas Pringle’s full costs of his challenge to Ireland’s ratification of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty, even though he was unsuccessful on every claim. The costs are to be taxed if the parties cannot agree them.
In a judgment delivered on 4 April 2014, Ms Justice Laffoy considered only what costs order should be made for the High Court proceedings. The substantive judgment had refused the relief sought, apart from adjourning Pringle’s claim that ratification of the ESM Treaty would be invalid pending a possible EU law reference. The High Court’s reference did not proceed. After an appeal, the Supreme Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which ruled on them in November 2012. Pringle later told the Supreme Court he no longer wished to pursue the outstanding constitutional issues; it dismissed the substance of his appeal and adjourned costs.
Pringle applied to the High Court for his costs. The defendants opposed an order requiring them to pay, while confirming they would not seek their own costs against him because of the public importance of some of the issues. They argued that, at most, only a portion of Pringle’s costs should be awarded.
Justice Laffoy applied the established principle that costs normally follow the outcome, while noting the court’s discretion to depart from that rule where the circumstances justify it. She found that the proceedings raised legal issues of special and general public importance. The EU law questions had been referred to the CJEU and determined under an accelerated procedure intended to resolve uncertainty about the treaty’s validity. The constitutional challenge, she said, was made more complex by its connection with those EU law issues and the unprecedented measures involved.
The judge also found that Pringle had no private interest in the outcome and could gain no private personal advantage if his challenge succeeded. Weighing the issues’ importance and complexity, their significance for both EU and Irish law, and that finding about Pringle’s interest, she concluded that full costs were justified. She recorded that the legal teams on both sides had conducted the urgent proceedings efficiently, but said this did not influence her decision.
The order requires the defendants to pay Pringle’s costs of the High Court proceedings, including any reserved costs, with the amount to be taxed if not agreed.