Judgment: 2025-03-07 · Court archive

Supreme Court declines costs for unsuccessful immigration appeal

The Court ordered no costs for the Supreme Court appeal and, with consent, set aside costs orders in the appellants’ favour in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court · [2024] IESC 58 (substantive appeal judgment)

Who, what, where, when and why

Who

See the report below for the parties involved.

What

The Court ordered no costs for the Supreme Court appeal and, with consent, set aside costs orders in the appellants’ favour in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court has declined to award costs to two unsuccessful appellants in an immigration case, finding that the appeal did not justify making taxpayers pay any part of their legal costs.

The Supreme Court has declined to award costs to two unsuccessful appellants in an immigration case, finding that the appeal did not justify making taxpayers pay any part of their legal costs.

In a ruling delivered on 7 March 2025, the Court also ordered, with the respondents’ consent, that costs orders in the respondents’ favour in the High Court and Court of Appeal be set aside and replaced with no order as to costs.

The ruling followed the Court’s dismissal, on 19 December 2024, of the appellants’ appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. That court had dismissed their appeals against High Court judgments refusing judicial review of immigration authorities’ decisions to refuse them permission to land or be in Ireland under section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004.

The appellants sought a portion of their legal costs. Their submissions said the appeal raised a point of exceptional public importance, addressed differing High Court interpretations of “public policy”, and had clarified the law. They also argued that the case’s public interest and the reasoning used at Supreme Court level supported an award.

The respondents submitted that they had succeeded at every court level and that the case did not meet the stringent test for awarding costs to an unsuccessful litigant in public interest litigation. They proposed no order as to costs for the Supreme Court appeal and, by consent, setting aside the earlier costs orders in their favour.

The Court applied considerations set out in its recent decision in Little v The Chief Appeals Officer & Ors (No. 2). It said this appeal involved applying established principles of statutory interpretation to the 2004 Act. It did not directly concern constitutional or European law, raise a foundational issue, or present a legal question of such significance that taxpayers should fairly bear the appellants’ costs.

The Court acknowledged that the case involved a matter of general public importance, but said that alone did not warrant an award. It therefore made the costs orders proposed by the respondents.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review