The High Court has made no order as to costs following the dismissal of a former resident’s appeal over a €15,000 limit on benefits from the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund.
In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2019, Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled that each party must bear its own costs. The appeal itself had been dismissed in full in a separate judgment delivered on 28 June 2019. The July judgment dealt only with who should pay the costs of those proceedings.
The appellant sought an order requiring the Appeals Officer and/or the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Board to pay his costs, arguing that the appeal was a test case that had clarified the law. The Board sought an order requiring him to pay its costs. The Appeals Officer did not seek costs and submitted that each party should bear their own.
The appeal concerned the Board’s introduction of a €15,000 cap on the aggregate value of benefits an individual could receive. The judge said the principal challenge—that the limit was beyond the Board’s powers—was fundamentally misconceived and could not be reconciled with the wording of the 2012 Act. He found no uncertainty in the law that required clarification. He also considered the procedural route taken, the appellant’s financial interest in obtaining further benefits, and the limited number of people who could be affected as the fund was being wound down and had stopped accepting new applications in August 2018.
The judge therefore refused the appellant’s application for costs. He also rejected the Board’s cross-application. In doing so, he considered that the appellant had limited means and had suffered abuse while resident in a scheduled institution, and that an order for costs could be financially ruinous. He weighed that against the depletion of a fund intended for former residents and concluded that ordering the appellant to pay the Board would be disproportionate. He said the arguments had not been frivolous or vexatious.
The court concluded that there should be no order as to costs. The ruling did not alter the earlier dismissal of the statutory appeal.