Chain Wei Wei v The Minister for Justice and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell C.J.,Woulfe J.,Hogan J.,Murray J.,Donnelly J.
• Judgment Date: 07 March 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IESC 9
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Record No. 2023/86

Between:

Chain Wen Wei

Appellant

and

The Minister for Justice and

The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána

Respondents

and

Tang Ting Ting

Appellant

-and—

The Minister for Justice and

The Commissioner of an Garda Síochána

Respondents

[2025] IESC 9

O'Donnell C.J.

Woulfe J.

Hogan J.

Murray J.

Donnelly J.

Supreme Court Record No. 2023/86

AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

Costs – Statutory interpretation – Immigration Act 2004 s. 4 – Appellants seeking costs – Whether the issues raised were manifestly ones of general public importance

Facts: The Supreme Court delivered the substantive appeal judgment on 19 December 2024 ([2024] IESC 58). The Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants, Mr Wei and Mr Ting, against the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 2 June 2023, which had dismissed their appeals against the judgments of the High Court delivered on 23 March 2021. The High Court refused the appellants’ applications for judicial review of the decisions made by the immigration authorities to refuse them a permission to land or be in the State pursuant to s. 4 of the Immigration Act 2004. In their submissions, the appellants sought orders granting them a portion of their legal costs, whether limited by percentage, by jurisdiction or by both. They submitted that this case was one of the rare cases in which it would be appropriate to consider an award of some costs to the unsuccessful appellants. In their submissions, the respondents, the Minister for Justice and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, highlighted that they had been entirely successful in defending the proceedings in the Courts below and before the Supreme Court. They cited the judgment of Murray J in Little v The Chief Appeals Officer & Ors (No. 2) [2024] IESC 53 and, in light of the principles identified therein, submitted that it would be appropriate for the Court to make the following costs orders: (i) that there be no order as to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court; and (ii) an order on consent setting aside the costs orders in favour of the respondents in the High Court and the Court of Appeal and substituting each of those orders with no order as to costs.

Held by the Court that in Little (No. 2) Murray J stated that the more recent decisions of the Court have agreed with the suggestion that the cases in which costs will be awarded in favour of a successful claimant have tended to be those in which “foundational issues of constitutional or European law” have been raised. The Court noted that, in that case itself, Murray J declined to award any costs in favour of the unsuccessful appellant. The Court was satisfied that similar considerations applied in this case. The Court held that the appeal involved the application to the 2004 Act of well-established principles of statutory interpretation. The Court held that it did not directly concern an issue of constitutional or European law; it did not involve an issue that could be described as “foundational”; it was a case pursued by the appellants for their own personal advantage; and while involving a matter of general public importance, as almost all appeals to the Court must do, it did not present a legal question of such significance (or an argument of such strength) that the taxpayer should fairly bear any of the appellants’ own costs.

The Court therefore made the costs orders suggested by the respondents.

No order as to costs.

RULING of the Court as to Costs delivered on the 7th day of March, 2025

1 This is the ruling of the Court in relation to costs arising from the substantive appeal judgment delivered by this Court on the 19 ^th December, 2024 (see: [2024] IESC 58). The Court dismissed the appellants' appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 2 ^nd June, 2023, which had dismissed their appeals against the judgments of the High Court (Burns J.) delivered on the 23 ^rd March, 2021. The High Court refused the appellants' applications for judicial review of the decisions made by the immigration authorities to refuse them a permission to land or be in the State pursuant to s.4 of the Immigration Act, 2004 (“the 2004 Act”).

2 On the same date, the Court directed that if the parties could not come to an agreement as to costs, they should file written submissions with regard to same. The respondents subsequently filed submissions dated the 30 ^th January, 2025, and the appellants filed submission dated the 7 ^th February, 2025.

3 In their submissions, the appellants seek orders granting them a portion of their legal costs, whether limited by percentage, by jurisdiction or by both. They submit that this case is one of the rare cases in which it would be appropriate to consider an award of some costs to the unsuccessful appellants, for six stated reasons. Firstly, the issue raised in the appeals is one which was certified by the High Court as a point of law of exceptional public...