Tearfund Ireland Ltd v Commissioner of Valuation
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barr |
| Judgment Date | 12 October 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 646 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [Record No. 2020/186 SS] |
[2021] IEHC 646
[Record No. 2020/186 SS]
THE HIGH COURT
Costs – Public interest – Charitable purposes – Respondent seeking costs – Whether the appeal had a sufficient element of public interest to warrant the court departing from the usual order that costs should follow the event.
Facts: The Valuation Tribunal, by a determination issued on 5th April, 2019, held that the appellant, Tearfund Ireland Ltd (Tearfund), was exempt from the obligation to pay rates as the premises were used for the advancement of religion. On the application of the respondent, the Commissioner of Valuation, the tribunal stated a case for the opinion of the High Court. On 28th July, 2021, the court answered the questions of law posed to it by the tribunal to the effect that the Valuation Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the meaning intended by the Oireachtas to be assigned to charitable purposes in para. 16 of Schedule IV of the Valuation Act 2001 included the “advancement of religion” and that the tribunal was incorrect to find that the advancement of religion was a charitable purpose for the purposes of the 2001 Act: [2021] IEHC 534. Accordingly, the Commissioner was successful on the appeal. In seeking payment of its costs, the Commissioner submitted that in advance of the hearing of the appeal by way of case stated before the High Court, it had made an offer of mutuality in respect of costs, namely that each party would bear their own costs of the appeal to the High Court. That offer was rejected by Tearfund. Instead, Tearfund brought an application seeking a protective costs order from the High Court, pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction. That application resulted in a written decision by O’Connor J, wherein he refused the order sought by Tearfund: [2020] IEHC 621. The Commissioner submitted that because Tearfund had elected to leave the issue of costs at large in the hope that they might recover an order for costs in the event that they were successful at the hearing of the appeal, and as they in fact lost on the appeal and the Commissioner was entirely successful in its appeal, the Commissioner was entitled to an order for payment of its costs by Tearfund having regard to the provisions of ss. 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It was submitted that insofar as it was argued by Tearfund in its submissions on costs following delivery of the substantive judgment, that the case was one of public importance and that therefore the court should make no order as to costs, that issue had already been determined by O’Connor J at the interlocutory stage, when he had held that the proceedings did not have a sufficient element of public interest to entitle Tearfund to a protective costs order. Accordingly, it was submitted that the issue of public interest, or the lack thereof, had already been determined by the High Court. In the alternative, the Commissioner submitted that as Tearfund had a commercial interest in the outcome of the appeal, it did not meet the criteria necessary for public interest litigation as set out in the authorities.
Held by Barr J that there was sufficient public interest in the outcome of the appeal to make it just that each party should bear their own costs of the hearing before the High Court. The court was not aware of what order may have been made by O’Connor J in respect of the costs of the interlocutory application. Barr J held that whatever order was made by the judge on that application would stand; however, if the costs of that application were reserved to the trial of the action, there should be no order in respect of that application.
Barr J held that the final order of the court should be as set out in the substantive judgment at para. 66 thereof. Barr J held that there should be no order as to costs on the appeal to the High Court; save as to the costs of the interlocutory application, if dealt with separately by O’Connor J.
No order as to costs.
RULING of Mr. Justice Barr on final order and costs.
By a determination issued on 5th April, 2019, the Valuation Tribunal held that Tearfund was exempt from the obligation to pay rates as the premises were used for the advancement of religion.
On the application of the Commissioner of Valuation, the tribunal stated a case for the opinion of the High Court.
In a written judgment delivered on 28th July, 2021 ( 2021 IEHC 534), the court answered the questions of law posed to it by the tribunal to the effect that the Valuation Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the meaning intended by the Oireachtas to be assigned to charitable purposes in para. 16 of Schedule IV of the Valuation Act 2001 included the “advancement of religion” and that the tribunal was incorrect to find that the advancement of religion was a charitable purpose for the purposes of the 2001 Act. Accordingly, the Commissioner was successful on the appeal.
Following the delivery of that judgment, the parties were invited to make written submissions in relation to the issue of costs and on any other matters that may arise. The parties furnished written submissions on the issue of costs.
In seeking payment of its costs, the Commissioner submitted that in advance of the hearing of the appeal by way of case stated before the High Court, it had made an offer of mutuality in respect of costs, namely that each party would bear their own costs of the appeal to the High Court. That offer was rejected by Tearfund.
Instead, Tearfund brought an application seeking a protective costs order from the High Court, pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction. That application resulted in a written decision by O'Connor J, wherein he refused the order sought by Tearfund. That judgment is reported at 2020 IEHC 621.
The Commissioner submitted that because Tearfund had elected to leave the issue of costs at large, in the hope that they might recover an order for costs in the event that they were successful at the hearing of the appeal; and as they in fact lost on the appeal and the Commissioner was entirely successful in its appeal; the Commissioner is entitled to an order for payment of its costs by Tearfund having regard to the provisions of ss. 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
It was submitted that insofar as it was argued by Tearfund in its submissions on costs following delivery of the substantive judgment, that the case was one of public importance and that therefore the court should make no order as to costs; that issue had already been determined by O'Connor J at the interlocutory stage, when he had held that the proceedings did not have a sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial