Harrison v Charleton (Approved) (Rev 1) [2021] IEHC 113 (18 February 2021)

Harrison v Charleton (Approved) (Rev 1) [2021] IEHC 113 (18 February 2021)

The Tribunal was entitled to refuse part of the applicant's costs based on findings that the applicant did not cooperate fully and knowingly gave false or misleading evidence. The Tribunal followed fair procedures, gave notice of concerns, and applied the correct legal principles. The refusal of full costs was not ultra vires, did not breach natural justice, and did not amount to penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 or breach of ECHR rights.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 113
Parties
Applicant: Keith Harrison; Respondent: Peter Charleton
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Tribunal Costs, Protected Disclosures, Natural Justice, Ultra Vires, European Convention on Human Rights, Public Law
Administrative Law Tribunals and Inquiries Costs Tribunal Costs Protected Disclosures Natural Justice Ultra Vires European Convention on Human Rights +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Harrison

Applicant

Peter Charleton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's refusal to award full costs to the applicant was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal improperly relied on substantive findings rather than conduct in making the costs decision
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied fair procedures or natural justice in the costs process

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to refuse part of the applicant's costs based on findings that the applicant did not cooperate fully and knowingly gave false or misleading evidence. The Tribunal followed fair procedures, gave notice of concerns, and applied the correct legal principles. The refusal of full costs was not ultra vires, did not breach natural justice, and did not amount to penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 or breach of ECHR rights.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for certiorari quashing the costs order refused
  • Application for mandamus requiring full costs order refused