The High Court has ordered Tearfund Ireland Limited and the Commissioner of Valuation to bear their own costs of a rates appeal, despite the Commissioner’s success on the legal issue. The ruling leaves any separate costs order on an earlier application for a protective costs order in place.
The costs ruling followed a substantive judgment delivered on 28 July 2021. In that judgment, the court held that the Valuation Tribunal had been wrong to treat the “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose under Schedule IV of the Valuation Act 2001. The tribunal had found Tearfund exempt from rates for premises used for the advancement of religion. The Commissioner successfully challenged that determination by way of a case stated to the High Court.
The Commissioner sought its costs, arguing that Tearfund had rejected an offer for each side to bear its own costs and had chosen to leave costs at large. It also argued that Tearfund’s public-interest case had already been rejected when O’Connor J refused a protective costs order in 2020.
Tearfund submitted that the appeal clarified the law for a wider group of organisations involved in religious activities. The court said the test for a protective costs order differs from the exercise of discretion over costs at the end of proceedings. It considered the latter under sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and the relevant court rules.
The judge noted that Tearfund stood to save about €4,000 a year if it qualified for the rating exemption, but said that financial interest alone did not prevent it relying on the public-interest argument. The court considered the legal issue important, found Tearfund’s original argument was not weak or unstateable, and said the outcome would affect premises and bodies engaged in activities described as the advancement of religion for rating purposes. It also noted that another appeal concerning a unit owned by Veritas in Sligo had been awaiting the outcome.
The court said Tearfund had succeeded before the Valuation Tribunal and was resisting the Commissioner’s appeal to protect that result. It found that Tearfund’s rejection of the Commissioner’s costs offer had neither lengthened the High Court hearing nor caused extra expense.
The court therefore made no order as to costs of the High Court appeal. The costs of the protective-costs application remain as ordered by O’Connor J; if those costs had been reserved, there will be no order for them. The final order is otherwise as set out in paragraph 66 of the substantive judgment. This ruling does not state the details of that paragraph 66 order.