The Court of Appeal has ordered Thomas Doyle to pay Gerard Harahill’s costs of an appeal concerning unpaid VAT, PAYE and PRSI, including the additional costs of responding to Doyle’s submissions on costs.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 9 April 2024, followed the court’s dismissal of Doyle’s appeal on 12 July 2023. In that earlier judgment, the court had expressed the provisional view that Harahill, who had succeeded in the appeal, should receive his costs. It allowed Doyle to make written submissions arguing for a different order and warned that he could face an additional costs order if those submissions failed.
Doyle argued that he had overpaid tax but could not obtain credits because claims for refunds had to be made within four years. He said retaining the overpayments amounted to unjust enrichment and breached the Constitution and principles of natural justice. He also argued that he was disadvantaged at a hybrid hearing during the Covid-19 pandemic, where he attended in the courtroom while the judges and Harahill’s representatives appeared remotely. Doyle further relied on delay in the delivery of the appeal judgment.
Harahill submitted that he had been entirely successful and was entitled to costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. He argued that there were no circumstances justifying a departure from the usual approach and said Doyle had been accommodated at the hearing despite broadband problems.
Binchy rejected Doyle’s arguments. The court had already ruled on the tax liability issue, and Doyle could not use an unsuccessful argument from the appeal to avoid an order for costs. The judge found that Doyle had not been disadvantaged by the hybrid hearing: he had the appeal papers and could present his case as he would have if the other participants had been in the courtroom. The delay in delivering judgment did not affect the merits of the appeal and was not a reason to deny Harahill costs.
The court concluded that Doyle had identified no factor in the parties’ conduct or the circumstances of the case that justified departing from the general rule. It ordered him to pay all of Harahill’s costs incurred in connection with the appeal, including the additional costs of Harahill’s reply submissions on costs. Justices Costello and Haughton agreed with the ruling.