Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals brought by two applicants against the International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice and Equality, affirming the High Court's decision and awarding costs to the respondents. The appeals sought to avoid a costs order on the basis that the legal issues were of general public importance and had a 'quasi-pathfinder' character, claiming that other pending cases were dependent on the outcome. The Court rejected these arguments, emphasising that the appeals pursued numerous additional grounds beyond those certified as being of exceptional public importance, and that the respondents were entirely successful. The Court held that, in line with standard legal principles, the unsuccessful parties must pay the costs of the appeals, as they had not demonstrated sufficient reasons to depart from the general rule.
costs order – international protection – appeal dismissed – Court of Appeal – judicial review – High Court – successful party – Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 – certified questions of public importance – quasi-pathfinder cases – leave to appeal – appellants" liability for costs – exceptional public importance – first instance – international protection appeals tribunal
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.