Halowane v Min for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] IEHC 280
• Docket Number: [17 J.R./2007]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 30 July 2008

[2008] IEHC 280

THE HIGH COURT

[17 J.R./2007]

Halowane v Min for Justice

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

OMAR HALOWANE

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM

RESPONDENT

RSC O.99

RSC O.99 r5(1)

RSC O.99 r5(2)

RSC O.99 r5(2)(a)

RSC O.99 r5(2)(c)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Costs

Immigration - Leave for judicial review - Humanitarian leave to remain granted - Offer to pay fixed sum in respect of costs - Unwillingness to submit to order for costs to be taxed in default of agreement - Costs hearing - Jurisdiction to order taxed costs to be paid up to specified date - Procedure for stopping clock in relation to costs - Costs up to and including costs hearing ordered to be taxed in default of agreement (2007/17JR - Finlay Geoghegan J - 30/7/2008) [2008] IEHC 280

Halowane v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

JUDGMENT of

Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan

on costs delivered on the 30th day of July, 2008

1 The applicant, by a notice of motion issued on 12^th January, 2007 returnable for 12^th February, 2007, sought leave to issue an application for judicial review seeking orders of certiorari and mandamus against the respondent.

2 On 19^th February, 2007, the solicitor for the respondent informed the solicitor for the applicant by fax that humanitarian leave to remain would be granted to the applicant and sought an adjournment on consent for one week to enable a letter with the decision to issue. I assume that such adjournment on consent was made.

3 On 21^st February 2007, a letter on behalf of the respondent was sent to the applicant, informing him that the respondent had decided to grant him temporary leave to remain in the State until 20^th February, 2010, and setting out the usual directions as to what should be done in implementation of the decision.

4 There were then a series of letters from the Chief State Solicitor to the applicant's solicitor which were originally sent on a without prejudice basis but which have now been disclosed to the court on consent. On 1^st March, 2007, the Chief State Solicitor wrote, stating:

"The applicant has been granted temporary leave to remain in the State until 20/02/2010, thus rending judicial review proceedings 2007/17 J.R. moot.

In consideration of the striking out of judicial review proceedings 2007/17 J.R. with no order, the respondent agrees to pay the sum of €7,500 plus VAT within eight weeks from the date of settlement in full and final settlement.

I look forward to hearing from you in advance of the return date."

5 The solicitors for the applicant responded to this letter by fax sent on 2^nd March, 2007, in the following terms:

"We refer to your letter dated 1^st March, 2007, with your settlement proposal in relation to the above matter. This settlement proposal will be acceptable provided that it is amended to read as follows, 'the applicant's reasonable costs to be paid by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement'.

We note that this matter is to be mentioned before the courts again on 12^th March, 2007.

We look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Thanking you for your attention to this matter."

6 On 6^th March, 2007, the Chief State Solicitor wrote in similar terms to that of the 1^st March, 2007, with an increased figure being offered for costs. This elicited an identical response by letter of 12^th March, 2007. By letters of 12^th March, 2007, and again, 27^th March, 2007, the Chief State Solicitor wrote in similar terms, but each time increasing the amount being offered for costs. These letters again elicited an identical response from the solicitor for the applicant by letter of 30^th March, 2007.

7 The matter was due to be listed before the court on 16^th April, 2007, and on 11^thApril, 2007, the Chief State Solicitor wrote, again repeating the amount of €12,500 plus VAT offered in the letter of 27^th March, 2007, and referring to an award made by MacMenamin J. in another case in the sum of €10,500 plus VAT, "where a settlement had been offered by the respondents and the applicant had not entered into any meaningful negotiations".

8 In that letter, it was also indicated that if the proposal was not acceptable the respondent would seek a costs hearing. Such a costs hearing was subsequently sought and was adjourned from time to time and ultimately heard by me. In the meantime, an affidavit had been sworn by a solicitor in the office of the Chief State Solicitor on 2^nd July, 2007, setting out in substance the above facts. Written submissions on behalf of the applicant and respondent on the question of costs were also prepared.

9 At the costs hearing counsel for the applicant sought an order for the...