The Supreme Court has made no order as to costs in Christopher McGee’s appeal, which it had dismissed on a preliminary limitation issue.
In a ruling delivered on 18 December 2023, Chief Justice O’Donnell said the Court would not award any portion of Mr McGee’s costs. The Court also made no order requiring him to pay the respondents’ costs.
The appeal had been dismissed in a judgment cited as [2023] IESC 14. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision that Mr McGee’s proceedings were barred by section 11(2) of the Statute of Limitations 1957. The High Court, in turn, had made no order as to costs.
The parties exchanged written submissions on costs and did not require an oral hearing. The respondents said they were not seeking an order for their own appeal costs, but opposed Mr McGee recovering any of his costs from them.
Mr McGee argued that the case was a test case raising an important legal issue. His submissions noted that the respondents had accepted the issue was of general public importance when leave to appeal was sought. He also relied on the efficient conduct of the litigation, including agreement to determine the issue as a preliminary point of law. He acknowledged his personal interest in the outcome, as success could have led to an award of damages, but argued that this did not prevent a costs award in his favour. He further submitted that the State respondents had obtained a significant benefit from the decision on limitation periods and constitutional torts.
The Court accepted that an individual bringing an important legal issue may have a different level of interest from respondents who could face the issue in many cases. It also noted that the point had not previously been squarely raised in other proceedings and that the case had been conducted efficiently. But those factors, the Court said, could justify not ordering an unsuccessful plaintiff to pay costs; they did not justify awarding him any part of his own costs.
The respondents were the Governor of Portlaoise Prison, the Minister for Justice & Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General. The ruling addressed costs in the appeal; the source does not describe any further order.