Collins -v- The Minister for Finance & Ors [2014] IEHC 79 (27 February 2014)

Collins -v- The Minister for Finance & Ors [2014] IEHC 79 (27 February 2014)

Given the exceptional public importance, novelty, and clarifying effect of the litigation, and the plaintiff's status as a public representative acting without personal gain, the Court exercised its discretion to depart from the general rule on costs and awarded the plaintiff 75% of her costs, despite her lack of success on the merits.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 79
Parties
Plaintiff: Joan Collins; Defendants: The Minister for Finance, Ireland and The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge (costs Ruling) / Post Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Plaintiff awarded 75% of her costs (including reserved costs), to be taxed in default of agreement.
Legal Topics
Separation of Powers, Appropriation of Public Funds, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Separation of Powers Appropriation of Public Funds Costs in Constitutional 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Collins

Plaintiff

The Minister for Finance, Ireland and The Attorney General

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge (costs Ruling) / Post Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 violated Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution by failing to articulate appropriate principles and policies.
  2. 2 Whether the 2008 Act violated Article 11 of the Constitution by permitting appropriation of public moneys without an upper limit stipulated by the Oireachtas.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff, as an unsuccessful litigant, should be awarded costs given the public importance and novelty of the issues raised.

Ratio Decidendi

Given the exceptional public importance, novelty, and clarifying effect of the litigation, and the plaintiff's status as a public representative acting without personal gain, the Court exercised its discretion to depart from the general rule on costs and awarded the plaintiff 75% of her costs, despite her lack of success on the merits.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff awarded 75% of her costs (including reserved costs), to be taxed in default of agreement.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to recover 75% of her costs, including reserved costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.