Lowry -v- Mr Justice Moriarty [2016] IEHC 29 (27 January 2016)

Lowry -v- Mr Justice Moriarty [2016] IEHC 29 (27 January 2016)

The Court held that the Tribunal's costs ruling was not irrational, unreasonable, or disproportionate. The findings of non-cooperation, falsification, and concealment by the applicant were unchallenged and justified the withholding of two thirds of his costs. The Tribunal's approach was within its discretion, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 29
Parties
Applicant: Michael Lowry; Respondent: Mr. Justice Moriarty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Tribunal Costs, Procedural Fairness, Proportionality, Legitimate Expectation, Discrimination
Administrative Law Public Law Judicial Review Tribunal Costs Procedural Fairness Proportionality Legitimate Expectation Discrimination

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Lowry

Applicant

Mr. Justice Moriarty

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's costs ruling was unreasonable or irrational
  2. 2 Whether the withholding of two thirds of applicant's costs was disproportionate
  3. 3 Whether the costs ruling was discriminatory vis-à-vis other parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Tribunal's costs ruling was not irrational, unreasonable, or disproportionate. The findings of non-cooperation, falsification, and concealment by the applicant were unchallenged and justified the withholding of two thirds of his costs. The Tribunal's approach was within its discretion, and procedural fairness was afforded. The applicant had no legitimate expectation overriding statutory discretion. The judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review refused
  • Costs awarded to respondent