Mary Munnelly v Margaret Hassett & Ors (Approved) [2024] IESC 41 (01 August 2024)

Mary Munnelly v Margaret Hassett & Ors (Approved) [2024] IESC 41 (01 August 2024)

Although the respondents were wholly successful, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs due to the public importance of the legal issue, the plaintiff's lack of representation, and the personal nature of the dispute, which justified a departure from the general rule.

Citation
[2024] IESC 41
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Mary Munnelly; Respondent/appellant: Margaret Hassett; Respondent/appellant: Timothy Cremin; Respondent/appellant: City Learning Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
No order as to costs in the Supreme Court; order for costs in favour of the plaintiff in the High Court set aside; no order as to costs in the High Court.
Legal Topics
Costs, Appeals, Res Judicata, Henderson V. Henderson Rule
Civil Procedure Costs Appeals Res Judicata Henderson V. Henderson Rule

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Munnelly

Plaintiff/respondent

Margaret Hassett

Respondent/appellant

Timothy Cremin

Respondent/appellant

City Learning Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the general rule that a wholly successful party is entitled to costs should be departed from in this case
  2. 2 Whether circumstances exist justifying no order as to costs despite the respondents' success

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondents were wholly successful, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs due to the public importance of the legal issue, the plaintiff's lack of representation, and the personal nature of the dispute, which justified a departure from the general rule.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs in the Supreme Court; order for costs in favour of the plaintiff in the High Court set aside; no order as to costs in the High Court.

Orders

  • No order as to costs in the Supreme Court.
  • Order for costs in favour of the plaintiff in the High Court set aside.