Judgment: 2022-11-11 · Court archive

Supreme Court orders Gerard Hutch to pay half of respondents’ appeal costs

After dismissing both appeals in July 2022, the Court awarded the State and Oireachtas respondents 50% of their appeal costs against Hutch. It left the High Court’s no-costs order unchanged.

The Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jonathan Dowdall (Appellant)
  • Gerard Hutch
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions
  • The Minister for Justice
  • Ireland
  • The Attorney General (Respondent)
What

After dismissing both appeals in July 2022, the Court awarded the State and Oireachtas respondents 50% of their appeal costs against Hutch. It left the High Court’s no-costs order unchanged.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The ruling concerns costs only. The Court said the respondents were successful in the appeals and were, in principle, entitled to their costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It rejected Hutch’s argument that no costs order should be made against him because Dowdall had first raised the point and Hutch had adopted the same arguments.

The Supreme Court has ordered Gerard Hutch to pay 50% of the appeal costs claimed by the State and Oireachtas respondents, after dismissing his appeal and a separate appeal by Jonathan Dowdall in July 2022.

The ruling concerns costs only. The Court said the respondents were successful in the appeals and were, in principle, entitled to their costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It rejected Hutch’s argument that no costs order should be made against him because Dowdall had first raised the point and Hutch had adopted the same arguments.

The Court said it would not be appropriate to make no order for costs, given the applicants’ significant personal interest in bringing the proceedings and appeal. But it also considered it inappropriate to impose the full appeal costs on one appellant when the respondents were not seeking costs against the other.

The State respondents were the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General. The Oireachtas respondents were Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. Both groups had told the Court they were not seeking costs against Dowdall because he had legal aid. They also agreed that any costs recovered would exclude costs connected with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission’s application to participate in the appeal.

The Court did not alter the High Court’s earlier decision to make no order as to costs in that court. That decision had been based on the case’s general importance, and the Supreme Court was not asked to review it.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review