Successful notice party should have been awarded costs in an unmeritorious judicial review

Employment law – costs of legal proceedings - judicial review – appeal to the Court of Appeal – High Court refused judicial review of the decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal – High Court ordered that the notice party pay a contribution to the costs to the applicant – notice party appealed this decision - complicated procedural background – applicant brought a series of claims against two related companies to the Rights Commissioner – no determination made as to who was the applicant’s employer – identical recommendations against both – appeal to the Labour Court – in appeal documents one company described themselves as the employer – appeal proceeded on this basis – Labour Court made a monetary award of €42,000 – predicated on the fact that the appellant to the Labour Court was the employer – no reference made to the mirror application concerning the notice party – applicant sought to enforce the Rights Commissioner’s recommendations against the notice party – and the award of damages by the Labour Court – referred the matter to the Employment Appeals Tribunal –sought the withdrawal of the application as applicant seeking to be doubly compensated – EAT held that the determination against the notice party was unenforceable – High Court proceedings – found that the EAT erred in law – refused relief – applicant cannot be doubly compensated - EAT made no reference to the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner that Quarries should pay the applicant €2,000 in respect of a breach of the Terms of Information (Employment) Act 1994 – Court took the failure of the EAT to address this award of damages when dealing with the issue of costs of the judicial review proceedings – refused to order costs to the successful notice party – ordered the notice party to pay the applicant €2,000 – legal principles governing costs - trial judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in equating the conduct of the companies prior to the hearing by the Labour Court on the one hand, with the exploitative and unprincipled conduct of the applicant thereafter – judicial review proceedings were unnecessary and part of a deliberate “unmeritorious” strategy - High Court should not have condoned the actions of the applicant in instituting and prosecuting the judicial review proceedings and the failure to award the notice party, the successful party, its costs against the applicant effectively failed to condemn this behaviour - trial judge gave undue weight to irrelevant matters and failed to give due weight to the central issue in the case - insufficient information to conduct a Veolia Water type assessment – appellate court should be slow to intervene with the exercise of the Court’s discretion – trial judge erred in law – appeal successful – decision ordering notice party to pay €2,000 in contribution to applicant’s costs vacated - costs of the High Court awarded to the notice party –