The Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources & Anor v Wymes (Approved) [2021] IESC 63 (14 September 2021)

The Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources & Anor v Wymes (Approved) [2021] IESC 63 (14 September 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the appeal did not meet the test for public interest litigation and that no basis existed to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event; therefore, the respondents were entitled to the costs of the appeal.

Citation
[2021] IESC 63
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources; Petitioner/respondent: Michael O’Connell; Respondent/appellant: Michael Wymes
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Appeal / Costs Ruling After Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
respondents awarded costs of the appeal
Legal Topics
Costs of Appeal, Act of Bankruptcy, Challenge to Bankruptcy Summons, Public Interest Litigation
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Costs of Appeal Act of Bankruptcy Challenge to Bankruptcy Summons Public Interest Litigation

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

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Petitioner/respondent

Michael O’Connell

Petitioner/respondent

Michael Wymes

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Appeal / Costs Ruling After Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event in an appeal concerning the effect of a statutory challenge to a bankruptcy summons
  2. 2 Whether the case qualifies as public interest litigation to justify a departure from the normal costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appeal did not meet the test for public interest litigation and that no basis existed to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event; therefore, the respondents were entitled to the costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

respondents awarded costs of the appeal

Orders

  • Respondents entitled to the costs of the appeal