The Supreme Court has awarded costs to Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation) and Irish Nationwide Building Society after dismissing Michael P. Fingleton’s appeal, while staying the costs order until the underlying proceedings are determined.
In a ruling delivered on 3 March 2025, the Court rejected Mr Fingleton’s request to reserve the costs question for the trial judge or make costs “costs in the cause”. It said he had not established exceptional circumstances to depart from the normal position that the successful party is entitled to costs of an interlocutory application.
The costs ruling followed the Court’s substantive appeal judgment of 19 December 2024, which dismissed Mr Fingleton’s appeal against a Court of Appeal decision. That decision had upheld a High Court refusal to dismiss or permanently stay proceedings against him. His application had argued that delay and his severe health created a real or substantial risk of an unfair trial or unjust result.
Mr Fingleton submitted that he might succeed on the merits at trial, or establish there that a fair trial was not possible. He also argued that recent witness depositions in Northern Ireland showed that documents available to the respondents were deficient. He said those matters could affect the trial judge’s view of the claim and costs, and asked the Court not to make a final costs decision divorced from the underlying proceedings.
The respondents argued that the costs of the interlocutory application should be decided now. They said the possibility of Mr Fingleton succeeding at trial did not show that costs could not justly be determined on the appeal, and that the documentary issue was for the trial judge.
The Court said the interlocutory issue was a discrete, self-standing matter and should be treated as such for costs purposes absent exceptional circumstances. It found the possible trial outcome did not justify departing from the usual rule. The question of whether the documentary record created a problem for a fair trial remained for the trial judge and had very limited relevance to the costs application.
However, the Court granted Mr Fingleton’s alternative request to stay the costs order pending determination of the proceedings. It cited the possibility of a set-off and reconciliation of costs orders at the conclusion of the trial, which was listed to begin on 6 May 2025. The ruling did not decide the merits of the underlying claim or whether the trial would be fair.