Abdi v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Dunne J,Charleton J,O'Malley J,Woulfe J,Murray J
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IESC 33
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [2021] IECA 237 Supreme Court appeal number: S:AP:IE:2021:000115 Court of Appeal record number: A:AP:IE:2020:000202 Central Criminal Court bill number: CCDP 87/2002

Between

The People (at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions)

Prosecutor/Appellant

and

Yusif Ali Abdi

Accused/Respondents

[2022] IESC 33

Dunne J

Charleton J

O'Malley J

Woulfe J

Murray J

[2021] IECA 237

[2020] IEHC 434

Supreme Court appeal number: S:AP:IE:2021:000115

Court of Appeal record number: A:AP:IE:2020:000202

Central Criminal Court bill number: CCDP 87/2002

An Chúirt Uachtarach

The Supreme Court

Costs – Party and party costs – Legal practitioner and client costs – Respondent seeking legal practitioner and client costs – Whether the parties pursued their factual and legal stance properly

Facts: The substantive judgment on the appeal was delivered on 30 May 2022. Instead of costs in the ordinary way, party and party costs, counsel for the respondent, Mr Abdi, sought what they referred to as solicitor and client costs, a level of remuneration beyond the award of party and party costs. This was understood to be an application for legal practitioner and client costs under Order 99 rule 1(1) and 10(3) of the Rules of the Superior courts. The argument on behalf of Mr Abdi was that the case somehow involved some consideration whereby “the Court should take account of the conduct of the proceedings”. The appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted: “It is accepted that an order for costs should extend to one solicitor, one junior counsel, and two senior counsel for the purposes of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court hearing on a par with the Appellant’s representation. In respect of the hearing before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, costs have already been awarded on the ordinary basis and no application was made for costs on a ‘solicitor and client’ basis.”

Held by the Supreme Court that, reverting to the substantive judgment, there was no finding of negligent or dishonest conduct on the part of any State party or witness. The Court held that it would be an impediment to the proper administration of justice for honest argument and robust evidence in pursuit of a genuine position in a case to be marked by an extraordinary award of costs. The Court held that there was no basis for that in this case, there was no parallel with any case cited on behalf of Mr Abdi, no comment was made as to any such case and no argument advanced as to same was to be taken as accepted by the Court. Rather, it was clear to the Court that all the parties pursued their factual and legal stance properly.

The Court awarded costs on a party and party basis.

Costs awarded.

Ruling on costs of Friday 29 July 2022

1 The substantive judgment on this appeal was delivered on 30 May 2022. This ruling...