The Court of Appeal has awarded a Revenue employee 50% of his costs in a judicial review dispute over senior posts in the Revenue Solicitors’ Office, including the costs of his High Court application on costs.
Joseph Hughes had sought an order requiring the Revenue Commissioners to maintain four Assistant Principal Legal Executive Officer (APLEO) positions under a 2004 collective agreement. The High Court dismissed his application for costs after the parties agreed to a new staffing arrangement and the case did not proceed to a hearing on its merits.
The Court of Appeal held that the new arrangement made the original claim legally moot because it superseded the earlier agreement. It created one APLEO post and provided that future posts would be filled according to business need. Hughes and the other relevant staff agreed to the arrangement. The court said the creation of one post alone would not have made his claim for four posts moot.
Hughes appealed the High Court’s decision that neither side should receive costs. The appeal concerned costs only; the Court of Appeal did not decide whether the Revenue had been legally obliged to fill four posts or determine the underlying judicial review claim.
In setting out the background, the court noted that a 2016 review had concluded that the staffing allocation in the 2004 agreement was no longer viable. Hughes had challenged the review, arguing that it was deficient and that the lack of promotion opportunities had affected staff in the legal technical stream. The Revenue disputed his criticisms and said staff grievances should be pursued through the civil service conciliation and arbitration scheme.
The Court of Appeal said the evidence included an uncontradicted account that the Revenue Solicitor had told Hughes the proposal to create and fill one post was being made in response to his proceedings. The timing also suggested a connection. The court found that the Revenue had not provided a good reason why the proposal could not have been made sooner, after Hughes’s solicitors wrote in May 2017 setting out his grievance and warning of possible judicial review.
However, Hughes received substantially less than he had sought. The court said the agreement also dissolved the legal basis of his claim under the earlier agreement, and took account of the wider industrial relations context. Balancing those factors, it awarded him half of his proceedings costs, including the High Court costs hearing.
The court’s proposed allocation of the costs of the appeal was also 50% to Hughes. That part was provisional: either party could seek an oral hearing on it by notifying the Court of Appeal office within ten days of the judgment.