G v Health Service Executive (Approved) [2022] IESC 26 (02 June 2022)

G v Health Service Executive (Approved) [2022] IESC 26 (02 June 2022)

Although the appellants lost the substantive appeal, the case was of general public importance, was initiated by the respondent, and involved systemic issues. The respondent, a State agency, sought the case stated and agreed not to seek costs. These factors justified a partial departure from the usual rule, awarding the appellants 40% of the costs of the appeal. The Court of Appeal's costs order was not disturbed as the appellants failed to properly raise the issue for appeal.

Citation
[2022] IESC 26
Parties
Appellant/applicant: ELG (a minor suing by her mother and next friend SG); Respondent/respondent: Health Service Executive (No. 2)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Case Stated From Circuit Court to Court of Appeal Under Section 16 of the Courts of Justice Act 1947 (as Amended) / Supreme Court Costs Ruling Following Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal dismissed; partial costs awarded to appellants.
Legal Topics
Costs, Statutory Interpretation, Public Interest Litigation
Administrative Law Disability Law Civil Procedure Costs Statutory Interpretation Public Interest Litigation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ELG (a minor suing by her mother and next friend SG)

Appellant/applicant

Health Service Executive (No. 2)

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Case Stated From Circuit Court to Court of Appeal Under Section 16 of the Courts of Justice Act 1947 (as Amended) / Supreme Court Costs Ruling Following Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the appellants despite losing the substantive appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal's costs order should be reversed on exceptional grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appellants lost the substantive appeal, the case was of general public importance, was initiated by the respondent, and involved systemic issues. The respondent, a State agency, sought the case stated and agreed not to seek costs. These factors justified a partial departure from the usual rule, awarding the appellants 40% of the costs of the appeal. The Court of Appeal's costs order was not disturbed as the appellants failed to properly raise the issue for appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal dismissed; partial costs awarded to appellants.

Orders

  • Dismiss the appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal.
  • Award the appellants 40% of the costs of the appeal on the basis of one day’s hearing.