Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
IECA 133 ECLI:IE:CA:2023:133 Généré par l'IA

Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and orders appellant to pay respondent's legal costs following unsuccessful appeal.

Numéro de cause IECA 133
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Irlande (IE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against previous High Court orders and ruled that costs must follow the event. The appellant argued that general issues raised justified no costs order, but the court found this amounted to re-litigation of already decided matters. Consequently, the court ordered the unsuccessful appellant to pay the respondent's legal costs, to be determined by a legal costs adjudicator.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

s. 10 of the Costs Act 1983; where an appeal is unsuccessful and no special circumstances exist, the general rule that costs follow the event applies, requiring the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party's costs.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
costs follow the event unsuccessful appeal legal costs adjudicator re-litigation of issues Board of Management Wilson's Hospital School Court of Appeal

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
s. 10 of the Costs Act 1983

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

[2022 No. 237]

The President Neutral Citation Number [2023] IECA 133

Edwards J. Whelan J.

BETWEEN

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF WILSON’S HOSPITAL SCHOOL

RESPONDENT

AND

ENOCH BURKE

APPELLANT

RULING of the Court on COSTS delivered (via electronic delivery) on the 26th day of May 2023 by Birmingham P.

1. On 7th March 2023, this Court delivered three judgments dismissing the appellant’s appeal against a number of High Court orders. The question of what order should be made in relation to the costs of the appeal hearing arises for consideration.

2. The parties were invited to provide written submissions. In those submissions, the appellant contended that no costs order should be made. The submissions referred to the fact that issues of general importance were raised. It must be said that the submissions on the part of the appellant, to some extent, at least, involve a re-litigation of the issues that were before the Court on the appeal hearing where he was unsuccessful. The respondent contends that the usual rule is that costs follow the event and that there were no substantial reasons of an unusual kind which would justify – still less, require – departing from that rule. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of the respondent. In our view, this is indeed a case where costs must follow the event, where there must be an order for costs in favour of the successful party, the respondent, the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School, and against the unsuccessful party, the appellant, such costs to be adjudicated by a legal costs adjudicator in default of agreement, and that will be the order of the Court.

Mr. Justice George Birmingham

Mr. Justice John Edwards

Ms. Justice Maire Whelan