The Court of Appeal has made no order as to costs in a judicial review case concerning a disability allowance application, following an earlier decision that allowed the State’s appeal and dismissed the proceedings.
The costs ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Anthony Collins on 14 May 2025 with the agreement of Justices Meenan and Hyland, dealt only with costs. The Court had already ruled on 5 March 2025 that the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment and order were set aside, and the judicial review proceedings were dismissed.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as L.A., had asked the Court of Appeal to leave the High Court costs order in place and award her costs, or part of her costs, for the appeal. Her submissions said the case raised an issue of public importance because it was the first time the Court of Appeal had considered whether failing to use a review procedure under section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 prevented an applicant from seeking judicial review.
The State respondents argued that the proceedings did not raise a point of law of general public importance and that the ordinary costs rules applied. They said they had succeeded in the appeal and could in principle seek costs against the applicant. However, they consented to replacing the High Court costs order with no order as to costs, and to no order for the appeal costs.
The Court said it was doubtful whether the proceedings met the test for “public interest proceedings”, but did not decide that question. For the purpose of its costs ruling, it accepted that they did. It concluded that the applicant had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for an unsuccessful party to receive costs in public interest litigation. The Court found no demonstrated fundamental constitutional issue, conspicuous novelty, or far-reaching legal issue clarifying an obscure area of law.
It also rejected the argument that the applicant should receive some costs because the High Court had ruled in her favour on aspects of the case that were later overturned. The Court said a High Court decision may be reversed on appeal, and a party cannot rely on a favourable part of a judgment after an appellate court has found the proceedings should not have been entertained.
The Court substituted no order for costs for the High Court’s costs order and made no order for the costs of the appeal. The judgment did not revisit the underlying disability allowance application or determine its merits.