Kevin Tracey v District Judge Miriam Malone and District Judge Bridget Reilly, Kevin Grogan, Ronan Coffey, and DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice John MacMenamin
• Judgment Date: 23 August 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESC 56
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [RECORD NO.: 262/2009]

Between:

Kevin Tracey

Appellant

and

District Judge Miriam Malone and District Judge Bridget Reilly, Kevin Grogan, Ronan Coffey, and The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondents

[2021] IESC 56

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

[RECORD NO.: 262/2009]

THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial review – Costs – Order 99, Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 – Respondents not seeking costs – Whether costs should follow the event

Facts: The appellant, Mr Tracey, appealed against a judgment and order delivered on the 20th January, 2009, refusing to grant judicial review against the respondents, the District Judges, Mr Grogan, Mr Coffey, and the Director of Public Prosecutions ([2009] IEHC 14). His appeal failed in the Supreme Court. The judgment was delivered on the 30th April, 2020 ([2020] IESC 21). The Court held that costs follow the event (Order 99, Rules of the Superior Courts 1986; s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015); prima facie, the respondents would be entitled to their costs. In the circumstances, counsel for the respondents submitted that the appropriate and just order was that no order for costs should be made.

Held by the Court that this was a fair resolution of the matter.

The Court made no order for the costs of the appeal, or in the High Court.

No order for costs.

Ruling on Costs by Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 23 ^rd day of August, 2021

1 This is a ruling on costs. The judgment in this appeal was delivered on the 30 ^th April, 2020 by MacMenamin J ( [2020] IESC 21). The appeal was against a judgment and order of Cooke J., delivered as long ago as the 20 ^th January, 2009, where that judge refused to grant judicial review against the respondents ( [2009] IEHC 14). The circumstances were fully set out in detail by the High Court judgment and this Court's judgment. The appellant's application for judicial review was refused. His appeal failed in this Court, in a judgment which addressed all the issues raised.

2 Costs follow the event (Order 99, Rules of the Superior Courts 1986; s.169(1) Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015). Prima facie, the respondents would be entitled to their costs. However, in the circumstances, counsel for the respondents submit that the appropriate and just order is that no order for costs should be made. In my view, this is a fair resolution of the matter. I would, therefore, make no order for the costs of this appeal, or in the High Court....