Mahon Tribunal -v- Keena & anor [2009] IESC 78 (26 November 2009)

Mahon Tribunal -v- Keena & anor [2009] IESC 78 (26 November 2009)

The deliberate destruction of evidence by the appellants, though they succeeded on appeal, was directly related to and intended to achieve the outcome of the case. This reprehensible conduct deprived them of their normal expectation of costs, justifying an order that they pay the respondents' costs in both courts.

Citation
[2009] IESC 78
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: HIS HONOUR JUDGE ALAN P. MAHON, HER HONOUR JUDGE MARY FAHERTY and HIS HONOUR JUDGE GERALD B. KEYES, MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN PLANNING MATTERS AND PAYMENTS; Defendant/appellant: COLM KEENA; Defendant/appellant: GERALDINE KENNEDY
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Following Successful Appeal
Outcome
Costs awarded to respondents despite appellants' success on appeal
Legal Topics
Journalistic Privilege, Freedom of Expression, Costs, Destruction of Evidence, Tribunal of Inquiry
Constitutional Law Media Law Civil Procedure Journalistic Privilege Freedom of Expression Costs Destruction of Evidence Tribunal of Inquiry

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HIS HONOUR JUDGE ALAN P. MAHON, HER HONOUR JUDGE MARY FAHERTY and HIS HONOUR JUDGE GERALD B. KEYES, MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY INTO CERTAIN PLANNING MATTERS AND PAYMENTS

Plaintiffs/respondents

COLM KEENA

Defendant/appellant

GERALDINE KENNEDY

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Costs Following Successful Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether successful appellants who destroyed evidence are entitled to costs
  2. 2 Appropriate balancing of journalistic privilege and public interest in tribunal inquiries

Ratio Decidendi

The deliberate destruction of evidence by the appellants, though they succeeded on appeal, was directly related to and intended to achieve the outcome of the case. This reprehensible conduct deprived them of their normal expectation of costs, justifying an order that they pay the respondents' costs in both courts.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to respondents despite appellants' success on appeal

Orders

  • Respondents entitled to recover the costs of both the High Court and Supreme Court from the appellants