The Court of Appeal held that statutory cost limits applied to a damages award in a prison assault case, capping the plaintiff’s recoverable High Court costs at €17,225 or the taxed costs of taking the action in the Circuit Court, whichever was lower.
The ruling was given by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 7 December 2016, after a costs hearing following the Court of Appeal’s decision in October 2016 to allow the plaintiff’s appeal. The judgment concerns the costs consequences of that earlier decision, not a new determination of liability.
The plaintiff had sued the Governor of Castlerea Prison, the Minister for Justice and Equality, the Irish Prison Service, Ireland and the Attorney General over an altercation while he was a prisoner. At the High Court trial, a jury found that a prison officer had assaulted him and awarded €4,500, but found him 95% contributorily negligent, reducing the award to €225. The Court of Appeal later awarded him €17,225 for assault and negligence, including €5,000 in exemplary damages because the assault also amounted to an intentional violation of his constitutional rights.
The State’s counsel argued that section 17(3) of the Courts Act 1981 applied because the High Court damages award fell within the statutory range. The plaintiff had been entitled to bring the case in the High Court and, to have a jury trial for assault, had to use that court. Hogan J described the action as one aimed at vindicating constitutional protections, and noted that the six-day High Court proceedings had been lengthened in part by the State defendants’ denial of the assault despite what he called overwhelming evidence, including CCTV footage.
Hogan J said the provision’s wording left no exception or residual discretion, even given the unusual nature of the litigation. He agreed with Ms Justice Irvine’s conclusion that the statutory cap applied if the action could also have been brought in the Circuit Court.
A further issue was whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction over damages claims for breaches of constitutional rights. Hogan J concluded that such claims fall within its statutory jurisdiction over tort actions, subject to applicable geographical and monetary limits. He said that applied both to claims based solely on constitutional rights and to the “hybrid” claim in this case, where exemplary damages for assault reflected a constitutional breach. He noted that wrongful detention claims are expressly excluded from the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction.
The court therefore limited the plaintiff’s recoverable High Court costs to the lesser of €17,225 or the taxed costs that would have applied in the Circuit Court.