Judgment: 2021-12-10 · Court archive

High Court orders applicant to pay Teaching Council’s costs after judicial review leave refused

The costs ruling followed an earlier refusal of leave on delay grounds. The judge allowed the costs of one counsel and stayed the order if an appeal is brought.

High Court · [2021] IEHC 753

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Fiona Roche (Applicant)
  • Teaching Council of Ireland (Respondent)
What

The costs ruling followed an earlier refusal of leave on delay grounds. The judge allowed the costs of one counsel and stayed the order if an appeal is brought.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 2 December 2021

    The court ordered Roche to pay the Council’s costs, allowing the costs of one counsel only. The order includes the written legal submissions and the 2 December 2021 costs hearing. Costs are to be adjudicated under Part 10 of the 2015 Act if the parties do not agree. The order is stayed if an appeal is brought to the Court of Appeal.

  • 27 July 2020

    The Council argued it had been entirely successful and should recover its costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. Roche asked the court to make no order, so each side would bear its own costs. Her counsel relied on an interim stay she had obtained on 27 July 2020, the public interest in regulating the teaching profession and the possibility that a costs order could deter other teachers from bringing similar cases.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge rejected the public-interest arguments. He said the case had been decided by applying established time-limit principles and had not clarified a legal issue of general importance. The grounds were specific to Roche’s employment history, educational experience and dealings with the Council. He also found no basis for treating her as a person of limited means.

The High Court has ordered Fiona Roche to pay the Teaching Council of Ireland’s costs after refusing her application for leave to seek judicial review, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree.

Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the costs judgment on 10 December 2021. Leave had been refused in a separate judgment on 25 November, on the ground of delay. The costs ruling did not reconsider that refusal; it decided who should pay the costs of the proceedings.

The Council argued it had been entirely successful and should recover its costs under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. Roche asked the court to make no order, so each side would bear its own costs. Her counsel relied on an interim stay she had obtained on 27 July 2020, the public interest in regulating the teaching profession and the possibility that a costs order could deter other teachers from bringing similar cases.

The judge said the temporary stay did not make Roche successful for costs purposes. It had been granted ex parte, before the Council took part in the proceedings, and before the Council incurred significant costs. The Council had raised its objection that the challenge was late before proceedings began and repeated it in a replying affidavit. Roche chose to continue the leave application to a hearing, where the delay objection succeeded.

The judge rejected the public-interest arguments. He said the case had been decided by applying established time-limit principles and had not clarified a legal issue of general importance. The grounds were specific to Roche’s employment history, educational experience and dealings with the Council. He also found no basis for treating her as a person of limited means.

The court ordered Roche to pay the Council’s costs, allowing the costs of one counsel only. The order includes the written legal submissions and the 2 December 2021 costs hearing. Costs are to be adjudicated under Part 10 of the 2015 Act if the parties do not agree. The order is stayed if an appeal is brought to the Court of Appeal.

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