Kevin Tracey v District Judge Tom O'Donnell and DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice John MacMenamin
• Judgment Date: 23 August 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IESC 54
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [RECORD NO.: 173/2008]

Between:

Kevin Tracey

Appellant

and

District Judge Tom O'Donnell and The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondents

[2021] IESC 54

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

Charleton J.

[RECORD NO.: 173/2008]

THE SUPREME COURT

Judicial review – Costs – Outlay – Appellant seeking costs – Whether costs should follow the event

Facts: The appellant, Mr Tracey, appealed to the Supreme Court against a judgment and order of the High Court. In a written judgment dated the 6th March, 2008, the appellant was refused judicial review. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed ([2020] IESC 19). The appellant submitted he was entitled to a sum of €9,019 by way of his costs and outlay. He drew the Court’s attention to the length of time the proceedings had been before the Court. Counsel on behalf of the respondents, the District Judge and the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that no order for costs should be made in the proceedings, either in the High Court, or in the Supreme Court.

Held by the Court that the appellant’s appeal was entirely unsuccessful. The Court held that the general principle applicable, pursuant to Order 99, Superior Court Rules 1986, as amended, and s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulations Act 2015 is that costs follow the event, and that a party who is entirely successful is entitled to their costs. The Court held that in not applying for costs, therefore, the respondents were making a substantial concession.

The Court considered the just order was to make no order for costs, in accordance with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents.

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. This was an appeal against a judgment and order of McGovern J. in the High Court. In a written judgment dated the 6 ^th March, 2008, the appellant was refused judicial review. The appellant's appeal this Court was dismissed ( [2020] IESC 19). The judgments of the High Court and of this Court set out the full circumstances of the case. The appellant, Mr. Tracey, who represented himself, submitted he was entitled to a sum of €9,019 by way of his costs and outlay. He drew the Court's attention to the length of time these proceedings had been before the Court. But Mr. Tracey's appeal was dismissed. His appeal was entirely unsuccessful. Counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that no order for costs should be made...