The Supreme Court has made no order as to the costs of an appeal brought by An Bord Bainistíochta, Gaelscoil Moshíológ, after finding that the board succeeded in changing significant parts of the High Court outcome but was far from fully successful.
In a ruling delivered by Chief Justice O’Donnell on 7 November 2024, the Court said neither side should receive costs of the Supreme Court appeal. The ruling concerns costs only; the Court had delivered its judgment in the appeal on 31 July 2024.
The board had sought 80% of its appeal costs, including costs relating to an initial dispute over its capacity to bring the appeal. Aodhagán Ó Súird, the respondent, sought half of the appeal costs, arguing that he had largely succeeded. Both sides agreed that an oral hearing on costs was unnecessary.
The Supreme Court said the board was entitled to appeal and had succeeded in altering the High Court’s order and overall assessment. But it rejected the board’s argument about the test for unfair dismissal, upholding the finding that Ó Súird had been unfairly dismissed. The Court also said that a practicality assessment was required for reengagement or reinstatement, but did not set aside the order on that basis because time had passed and a further hearing would serve little purpose.
The Court had also concluded that a stay or partial stay should have been granted pending appeal and that the High Court should not have awarded costs on a lawyer-and-own-client basis. Those issues took little time in the appeal, the ruling said. Ó Súird was entitled to his costs of the High Court hearing, and the parties did not dispute that entitlement.
In refusing Ó Súird any share of the appeal costs, the Court said he had stood over the High Court judgment in full and had made no concession. It also noted that he had already received a full costs order for the High Court hearing. In deciding against an award to the board, the Court considered that the board had lost on the unfair dismissal test and that the unfair dismissal finding remained in place.
The ruling also referred to the length of the proceedings, the limited ability of either side to recover costs, and Ó Súird’s position as an individual who had been found unfairly dismissed and would be required to repay money paid under the High Court order. The Court said the case’s outcome and merits were not clear-cut, and that the parties still had to work together.
In a note, the Court recorded the respondent’s statement that any repayment of salary found to have been overpaid would be due to the Department of Education, which had paid it. It also recorded the board’s information that a principal appointed in 2016 had taken leave or been seconded to another school and had a right to return. The Court stressed that this matter had not been debated on appeal and that it made no finding about it.