A taxi licence applicant whose refusal was quashed by the High Court will recover 50% of his legal costs, with his application also to be reconsidered by a different decision-maker.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan made the costs ruling on June 20, 2025 following an earlier judgment in which she set aside the November 7, 2023 decision refusing P.K. a small public service vehicle licence.
P.K. had argued, among other matters, that the licensing authority was not entitled to rely on the fact that a sexual assault allegation had previously been made against him where he had been acquitted. The High Court rejected that central proposition. It nevertheless quashed the licensing decision on other grounds.
The court found in the earlier proceedings that P.K. had succeeded on issues concerning the adequacy of the pleadings, the inadequacy in his particular case of an appeal to the District Court as an alternative remedy, and procedural unfairness caused by a failure to disclose material relied upon by the licensing authority.
The costs dispute concerned whether that outcome entitled him to recover all of his legal expenses. P.K. argued that a successful judicial review applicant does not need to win every argument to receive costs. The respondents contended that no costs should be awarded because he had failed on the fundamental premise of his challenge and because of his conduct before proceedings began.
Ms Justice Phelan found that P.K. could not be regarded as entirely successful. She also criticised aspects of his pre-litigation engagement, including the tone of correspondence and failures to request or provide relevant material which might have clarified the licensing authority's concerns.
The judge said better engagement could potentially have avoided at least part of the litigation. However, responsibility for ensuring a fair decision-making process ultimately remained with the licensing authority, so denying P.K. all costs would have gone too far.
She therefore reduced his recoverable costs by 50%. The parties also agreed that the licence application should be sent back for fresh consideration by a different decision-maker.