The Court of Appeal has awarded the Criminal Assets Bureau the costs of an appeal brought by Stefan Saunders and Tammy Saunders, finding no basis to depart from the usual rule that costs follow success.
In a ruling dated 20 March 2024, Ms Justice Faherty said the Bureau had been entirely successful on the material issues in the appeal. The appellants had not shown special reasons for denying it its costs, she said. Whelan and Haughton JJ indicated their agreement.
The costs ruling followed the court’s principal judgment of 15 February 2024, which dismissed the appellants’ appeal against a High Court order under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. That order prohibits the appellants, and anyone notified of it, from disposing of or otherwise dealing with property at Hazelbury Park, Dublin 15, or diminishing its value. The judgment describes the property as a house jointly owned by the appellants and their family home. The costs ruling did not alter that order.
The appellants argued that no costs order should be made because they received legal aid through the Criminal Assets Bureau’s ad hoc scheme. They also submitted that the appeal was a civil public law case concerning an order against their home. Faherty J. noted that they cited no authority supporting either argument.
The Bureau sought its appeal costs, relying on the general position in section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 that an entirely successful party is entitled to costs unless the court orders otherwise. It also argued that legal aid covered the recipient’s own legal costs and did not remove responsibility for an adverse costs order.
Faherty J. referred to section 33(2) of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, which directs courts to make costs orders as they would if no party had legal aid. She said the exceptions discussed in earlier authority for criminal prosecutions and family law proceedings did not apply. Under the 2015 Act and Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, the court retained discretion to depart from the usual position, considering the nature and circumstances of the case and the parties’ conduct. The appellants had identified no conduct by the Bureau warranting departure, and their legal aid status alone was not enough.
The ruling concerns the costs of the appeal. The principal judgment dismissing the appeal had already been delivered.