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 |
Court of Appeal allows appeal and vacates the order of the High Court that the appellants bear the costs of the proceedings following the refusal to grant an order of judicial review quashing a decision of the respondent refusing the appellant's application for emergency homeless accommodation, and substitutes it for an order that each party shall bear their own costs of the proceedings, on the grounds that: (a) the Court knows the factors that led to the administrative decision being taken that rendered the proceedings moot; (b) the factors giving rise to the decision were not in existence at the time of the Judicial Review proceedings; (c) given the short period that passed between the decision that the appellant sought to review and the hearing of the case, and the minimal changes that had occurred to the circumstances of the appellants during that time, there was no basis on which it can be concluded that the respondent would have reached any different decision by the time of the hearing of the High Court proceedings; and (d) to impose liability in costs upon the respondent because it did not make a second decision before the hearing of the judicial review would represent an unwarranted conclusion that the only proper decision open to the respondent would have been to reverse its earlier decision and would amount to the indirect imposition of an obligation which was not reasonable.
Murray J (nem diss): Judicial review - costs of legal proceedings - the appellants sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent refusing their application for emergency homeless accommodation - the High Court refused the relief sought - costs awarded against the appellants - an appeal was filed - the respondent determined to provide financial assistance towards the cost of the appellants’ temporary emergency accommodation on a week to week basis following the provision of further documentation - appeal was rendered moot - who should bear the costs of the proceedings - appellant argued that the costs of the entire proceedings should be borne by the respondent as it was their decision that rendered the appeal moot - respondent contends that no order for costs should be made - Court sets out the proper approach to allocating the costs of moot proceedings - decision that led to the proceedings being moot was not made as a result of the proceedings - appeal allowed - Court substituted order so that each party must bear their own costs of the proceedings.
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.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now