Kenny & ors v Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & ors [2018] IESC 62 (10 December 2018)

Kenny & ors v Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform & ors [2018] IESC 62 (10 December 2018)

The High Court's award of two-thirds costs to the claimants was a lawful exercise of discretion, as the claimants succeeded in having the Labour Court's decision set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing. The events of the litigation justified the costs order, and there was no substantial departure from accepted principles. The State appellants' appeal on costs failed as they did not challenge the substantive orders, and the claimants' cross-appeal for full costs also failed.

Citation
[2018] IESC 62
Parties
Appellants/respondents: Margaret Kenny, Patricia Quinn, Nuala Condon, Eileen Norton, Ursula Ennis, Loreta Barrett, Joanne Healy, Kathleen Coyne, Sharon Fitzpatrick, Breda Fitzpatrick, Sandra Hennelly, Marian Troy, Antoinette Fitzpatrick, Helena Gatley; Respondents/appellants: Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Department of Finance, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Gender Discrimination, Equal Pay, Objective Justification, Costs in Litigation, Comparators in Discrimination Cases
Employment Law Equality Law European Union Law Indirect Gender Discrimination Equal Pay Objective Justification Costs in Litigation Comparators in Discrimination Cases

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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Kenny, Patricia Quinn, Nuala Condon, Eileen Norton, Ursula Ennis, Loreta Barrett, Joanne Healy, Kathleen Coyne, Sharon Fitzpatrick, Breda Fitzpatrick, Sandra Hennelly, Marian Troy, Antoinette Fitzpatrick, Helena Gatley

Appellants/respondents

Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Department of Finance, Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Respondents/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding two-thirds of costs to the claimants in proceedings concerning indirect gender discrimination and equal pay
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court and High Court correctly applied the law on comparators and objective justification under EU and Irish equality law
  3. 3 Whether industrial relations considerations can be a factor in objective justification for pay differentials

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's award of two-thirds costs to the claimants was a lawful exercise of discretion, as the claimants succeeded in having the Labour Court's decision set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing. The events of the litigation justified the costs order, and there was no substantial departure from accepted principles. The State appellants' appeal on costs failed as they did not challenge the substantive orders, and the claimants' cross-appeal for full costs also failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Supreme Court dismissed the State appellants' appeal on costs.
  • Supreme Court dismissed the claimants' cross-appeal for full costs.