The Court of Appeal has awarded Stephen Beatty the costs of his successful appeal and of the motion he opposed in the High Court, following its earlier decision to allow his appeal and dismiss the defendants’ motion.
In a costs ruling delivered electronically on 14 May 2025, Mr Justice Noonan said the court’s provisional view, expressed in its principal judgment, was correct. Justices Woulfe and Burns agreed.
The defendants had asked the court to reserve costs in both courts until the proceedings were finally determined. Alternatively, they argued that costs should be “costs in the cause”, meaning their allocation would follow the eventual outcome of the case.
They relied on provisions of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and the Rules of the Superior Courts concerning costs in interlocutory applications. Their submission drew an analogy with injunction applications, where costs may be reserved because a full trial can later cast the parties’ conduct in a different light. They argued that the plaintiff’s decision to contest their motion could not yet be assessed for reasonableness because a trial judge would ultimately decide whether a fair trial remained possible.
The court had previously held that the fair-trial issue could be considered by the trial judge after hearing the evidence. The costs ruling addressed only who should pay for the appeal and the High Court motion; it did not decide the case on its merits or whether a fair trial would be possible.
Mr Justice Noonan said the starting point under the rules and legislation was that the court should decide costs when determining an interlocutory application, with the entirely successful party normally entitled to costs unless there were countervailing factors or it was not possible to decide liability justly.
He said the Supreme Court’s costs ruling in Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (In special liquidation) and another v Fingleton governed the issue. In that case, the Supreme Court had rejected a similar request to reserve costs, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the usual approach. The possibility that a party might later succeed at trial, the Supreme Court had said, was not enough.
Mr Justice Noonan found no meaningful basis to distinguish that ruling. He said the motion raised a “free standing” issue: whether justice required the case to be dismissed before a hearing on its merits. Its resolution was unrelated to the eventual outcome of the proceedings. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to the costs of the appeal and the High Court motion.