Mongans v Clare County Council (Approved) [2020] IECA 252 (24 September 2020)

Mongans v Clare County Council (Approved) [2020] IECA 252 (24 September 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in applying the reasonableness test for costs in moot proceedings, as this has been superseded by Supreme Court authority. Since the proceedings became moot due to circumstances not attributable to the appellant's unilateral act, no order as to costs should be made for the substantive proceedings. However, as the appellant was entirely successful on the motion to amend, it is entitled to those costs. The appellant is also entitled to the costs of the appeal.

Citation
[2020] IECA 252
Parties
Applicant/respondent: David Mongans; Applicant/respondent: Margaret Lisa Mongans; Applicant/respondent: Margaret Lisa Mongans as mother and next friend of David Mongans (a minor), Michael James Mongans (a minor) and Martin Mongans (a minor); Respondent/appellant: Clare County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Decision on Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; no order as to costs of substantive proceedings; costs of amendment motion and appeal awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Costs in Moot Proceedings, Judicial Review, Discrimination, Housing Law
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Costs in Moot Proceedings Judicial Review Discrimination Housing Law

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mongans

Applicant/respondent

Margaret Lisa Mongans

Applicant/respondent

Margaret Lisa Mongans as mother and next friend of David Mongans (a minor), Michael James Mongans (a minor) and Martin Mongans (a minor)

Applicant/respondent

Clare County Council

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding 50% of costs to the applicants in judicial review proceedings that became moot
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the event in respect of a failed motion to amend
  3. 3 Whether the correct test for costs in moot proceedings is reasonableness of commencing or continuing proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in applying the reasonableness test for costs in moot proceedings, as this has been superseded by Supreme Court authority. Since the proceedings became moot due to circumstances not attributable to the appellant's unilateral act, no order as to costs should be made for the substantive proceedings. However, as the appellant was entirely successful on the motion to amend, it is entitled to those costs. The appellant is also entitled to the costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; no order as to costs of substantive proceedings; costs of amendment motion and appeal awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the substantive High Court proceedings except for the amendment motion.
  • Appellant awarded costs of the amendment motion.