Zalewski v Adjudication Officer (Glackin) and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Meenan
Judgment Date13 March 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IEHC 156
Docket Number[2017 No. 146 J.R.]
CourtHigh Court
Date13 March 2018

[2018] IEHC 156

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Meenan J.

[2017 No. 146 J.R.]

BETWEEN
TOMASZ ZALEWSKI
APPLICANT
AND
ADJUDICATION OFFICER (ROSALEEN GLACKIN), THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS COMMISSION, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS
AND
BUYWISE DISCOUNT STORE LIMITED
NOTICE PARTY

Practice & Procedure – O. 99, r. 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Consent to payment of applicant's costs – Lack of creditability – Costs order in part.

Facts: The applicant sought the costs of the entire proceedings. The respondents consented to an order for costs in favour of the applicant up to the date on which a relevant letter was issued. The respondents contended that the decision of the first respondent was 'an administrative error'.

Mr. Justice Meenan granted an order for costs in part in favour of the applicant. The Court granted the costs of the proceedings up to the date on which the letter was issued by the respondents. The Court held that the explanation given by the respondents for the decision of the first respondent lacked credibility and was unacceptable. The Court found that the applicant did not have locus standi to maintain a constitutional challenge to the relevant legislation. The Court noted that there was consent to an order of certiorari for quashing the decision and for the payment of the applicant's costs up to the date of the letter. The Court also referred to the principles set out in the case of Collins v. The Minister for Finance and Other [2014] IEHC 79 to the effect that the Court had discretion to award costs to the unsuccessful party, in the special circumstances of a case.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 13th day of March, 2018.
Introduction
1

On 8th February, 2018 I delivered judgment in this matter. The respondents by letter dated 4th April, 2017 conceded that the applicant was entitled to an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the first named respondent dated 16th December, 2016. This letter also consented to an order for the costs of the proceedings up to the date of the said letter.

2

The issue to be determined by this Court was whether the applicant had locus standi to maintain a constitutional challenge to the relevant legislation. I found that the applicant did not have locus standi and thus was precluded from continuing his constitutional challenge.

3

The explanation given by the respondents for the decision of 16th December, 2016 was that it was 'an administrative error'. In my view, this explanation lacked creditability and given the importance of the decision for those involved made the explanation for the decision unacceptable.

4

The issue now before this Court is the determination of costs. The respondents, though successful in the motion, have informed the court that they are not seeking an order for costs against the applicant and consent to an order for costs in favour of the applicant up until the 4th April, 2017, the date of the said letter. The applicant seeks the costs of the entire proceedings.

Principles to be Applied
5

O. 99 r. 1(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides:-

'(1) The costs of and incidental to every proceeding in the Superior Courts shall be in the discretion of those Courts respectively.'

6

O. 99 r. 1(4) of the Rules of the Superior Courts provides:-

'(4) The costs of every issue of fact or law raised upon a claim or counterclaim shall, unless otherwise ordered, follow the event.'

7

The 'event' in the proceedings before this Court was that the applicant is now precluded from maintaining his constitutional challenge to the legislation in question. Thus, applying the general rule, the respondents would be entitled to their costs.

8

However, as is clear from the said order, the court has a discretion which may be exercised to make a costs order in favour of a losing party. The court has been referred to a number of authorities as to how it should exercise this discretion.

9

The matter was considered by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others; Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 Julio 2023
    ...1 I.R. 336. 700 Case C-50/09 Commission v Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2011:109. 701 Sweetman v Environmental Protection Agency & Nurendale Ltd [2018] IEHC 156. 702 Recital (21**), Article 1(2)(g)(v), Article 703 The plural is deliberate as more than one authorisation may combine to constitute the dev......
  • Peter Sweetman v an Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 Octubre 2021
    ...Sweetman IX Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2016 No. 715 JR] [2017] IEHC 46 [2017] IEHC 133 Sweetman X Sweetman v. EPA [2016 No. 824 JR] [2018] IEHC 156 Sweetman XI Sweetman v. EPA [2017 No. 664 JR] [2019] IEHC 81 Sweetman XII Sweetman v. Clare County Council [2018 No. 178 JR] [2018] IEHC 517......
  • Zalewski v Adjudication Officer
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 Marzo 2019
    ...made on 13 March 2018, for the reasons set out in two written judgments delivered on 8 February 2018 ([2018] IEHC 59) and 13 March 2018 ([2018] IEHC 156). The first judgment determined the locus standi issue and the second related only to costs. This appeal concerned the requisite locus sta......
  • Zalewski v Adjudication Officer
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 2018
    ...March, 2018 for the reasons set out in two written judgments delivered on the 8th February, 2018: [2018] IEHC 59 and 13th March, 2018: [2018] IEHC 156. As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty Third Amendment......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT