High Court awards the State respondents the costs of an unsuccessful application for leave to apply for judicial review, challenging the imposition of legislation arising from the 'Covid-19' pandemic, on the grounds that: (a) the rule provided for in legislation was that costs should 'follow the event' other than in exceptional circumstances; (b) in the instant case, the High Court had ordered that the application for leave be made on notice to the State respondence; (c) the applicants had failed to file legal submissions in answer to points made by the State respondents, despite being given an opportunity to do so; (d) the applicants had based their claim to have an arguable case primary on their own opinions, such that they had failed to establish that the proceedings were in the public interest; and (e) in the circumstances, the applicants had failed to establish exceptional circumstances that would justify a departure from the legislative rule.
Challenge to constitutionality of legislation - procedures involved in enacting legislation - refusal of leave to seek judicial review - costs - application on notice to State respondents - dates fixed for delivery of legal submissions - no submissions delivered by applicants - whether costs to 'follow the event' - s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 - exceptions to rule that successful party entitled to an award of costs against party that is not successful - whether application should have proceeded on an ex parte basis - whether State respondents should have been separately represented - 'public interest' in application - whether executive and legislature should have been separately represented - separation of powers - public interest.