Little v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection (Approved) [2024] IESC 53 (19 November 2024)

Little v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection (Approved) [2024] IESC 53 (19 November 2024)

The Supreme Court held that, while the general rule under s. 169 of the LSRA is that the successful party is entitled to their costs, in public interest proceedings raising a point of law of general public importance, the court retains discretion to depart from this rule. Financial hardship alone is not a sufficient basis for departing from the default rule, but it may be considered alongside other relevant factors. In this case, given the respondents' concession and the public importance of the issues, no order as to costs was made against the applicant for either the High Court or Supreme Court proceedings.

Citation
[2024] IESC 53
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Deirdre Little; Respondents: Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs) / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Substantive Appeal
Outcome
No order as to costs; previous costs order set aside by consent.
Legal Topics
Costs in Public Law Proceedings, Interpretation of Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 Ss. 168 169, Public Interest Litigation, Discretion in Awarding Costs, Domiciliary Care Allowance
Administrative Law Social Welfare Law Civil Procedure Costs in Public Law Proceedings Interpretation of Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 Ss. 168 169 Public Interest Litigation Discretion in Awarding Costs Domiciliary Care Allowance

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deirdre Little

Applicant/appellant

Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Appeals Office and Minister for Social Protection

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs) / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the financial hardship of an unsuccessful applicant is a relevant factor in departing from the default rule that costs follow the event under s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the approach to costs in public interest proceedings should be modified in light of the Thirty-Third Amendment to the Constitution and the LSRA
  3. 3 Whether Dunne v. Minister for the Environment remains good law on costs in public interest litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, while the general rule under s. 169 of the LSRA is that the successful party is entitled to their costs, in public interest proceedings raising a point of law of general public importance, the court retains discretion to depart from this rule. Financial hardship alone is not a sufficient basis for departing from the default rule, but it may be considered alongside other relevant factors. In this case, given the respondents' concession and the public importance of the issues, no order as to costs was made against the applicant for either the High Court or Supreme Court proceedings.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; previous costs order set aside by consent.

Orders

  • The costs order made against the appellant by the High Court is set aside.
  • No order as to costs in the High Court or Supreme Court proceedings.