BM and JM (A Minor suing by his Mother and Next Friend BM) v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Officer, The Minister for Social Protection, Ireland and the Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell C.J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J.,Woulfe J.,Collins J.
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IESC 39
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2023:000115

Between/

BM and JM (A Minor Suing by his Mother and Next Friend BM)

Appellants

and

Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Officer, The Minister for Social Protection, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

[2025] IESC 39

O'Donnell C.J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

Woulfe J.

Collins J.

S:AP:IE:2023:000115

AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial review – Article 41.2 of the Constitution – Costs – Appellants seeking a proportion of their costs – Whether the proceedings raised a novel and important issue of far-reaching importance in an area of the law of general application

Facts: The Supreme Court, in a judgment of 12 November 2024 ([2024] IESC 51), dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the judgment of the High Court and affirmed the order of the High Court dismissing the application for judicial review. It was accepted that the issue of costs must be approached on the basis that the respondents, the Chief Appeals Officer, the Social Welfare Appeals Officer, the Minister for Social Protection, Ireland and the Attorney General, had been “entirely successful” in the proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court, and accordingly the starting position was that the respondents should be entitled to their costs in accordance with s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It was also accepted that since the Court granted leave to appeal on the grounds that the decision involved a matter of general public importance, the issue of costs fell to be addressed by reference to the principles set out by the Court in Little v Chief Appeals Officer and Ors. [2024] IESC 53. Taking those factors into account, the respondents did not seek an order for costs in their favour, but rather submitted that the Court should make no order as to costs. The appellants contended that the Court should direct that the respondents pay the appellants fifty per cent of their costs of the proceedings in the High Court and fifty per cent of the costs of the appeal. The appellants made four main arguments in that regard: first, that the proceedings involved a Constitutional issue concerning Article 41.2 of the Constitution that “touched on sensitive aspects of the human condition”; second, that the Constitution issue was one of “conspicuous novelty and importance”; third, that the proceedings raised a “novel and important issue of far-reaching importance in an area of the law of general...