A, S & I v The Minister for Justice & ors (Approved) [2021] IESC 14 (15 March 2021)

A, S & I v The Minister for Justice & ors (Approved) [2021] IESC 14 (15 March 2021)

The Appellants were successful in their appeal and there are no special circumstances to justify a departure from the normal rule that costs follow the event. The proceedings were not test cases as the issue had already been decided in RC. Clarification of the law or partial success on arguments does not alter the costs order.

Citation
[2021] IESC 14
Parties
Applicant/respondent: A; Applicants/respondents: S and S; Applicant/respondent: I. I. (Nigeria); Respondent/appellant: The Minister for Justice and Equality; Respondent/appellant: The Attorney General; Respondent/appellant: Ireland; Notice Party: The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
Costs awarded to the Appellants/Respondents
Legal Topics
Costs, Constitutionality of Legislation, Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights, Interpretation of International Protection Act 2015
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Immigration Law Costs Constitutionality of Legislation Compatibility With European Convention on Human Rights Interpretation of International Protection Act 2015

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant/respondent

S and S

Applicants/respondents

I. I. (Nigeria)

Applicant/respondent

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

Ireland

Respondent/appellant

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the normal rule that costs follow the event should be departed from in this case
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings constituted a test case justifying a different costs order
  3. 3 Whether clarification of the law or partial success on arguments affects the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellants were successful in their appeal and there are no special circumstances to justify a departure from the normal rule that costs follow the event. The proceedings were not test cases as the issue had already been decided in RC. Clarification of the law or partial success on arguments does not alter the costs order.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the Appellants/Respondents

Orders

  • Appellants are entitled to their costs in the Supreme Court and the High Court.