Ryanair DAC v An Taoiseach & Anor (Approved) [2020] IEHC 673 (31 December 2020)

Ryanair DAC v An Taoiseach & Anor (Approved) [2020] IEHC 673 (31 December 2020)

The court held that the respondents were entitled to their costs because Ryanair's application was dismissed in its entirety, the issues on which Ryanair prevailed did not materially affect the proceedings, the case was brought by a well-resourced commercial entity for its own interests, and the issues raised were not of such general public importance as to justify a departure from the default rule. The change in government travel advice did not render the proceedings moot in a manner that would entitle Ryanair to costs.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 673
Parties
Applicant: Ryanair DAC; Respondents: An Taoiseach, Ireland and the Attorney General; Notice Party: Aer Lingus Ltd
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Substantive Application
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to respondents against Ryanair; notice party to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Costs, Judicial Review, Public Interest Litigation, Separation of Powers, Mootness
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Constitutional Law Costs Judicial Review Public Interest Litigation Separation of Powers Mootness

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryanair DAC

Applicant

An Taoiseach, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Aer Lingus Ltd

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Costs Judgment Following Dismissal of Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings presented issues of general public importance justifying a departure from the normal rule on costs
  2. 2 Whether Ryanair was partially successful and entitled to a modified costs order
  3. 3 Whether a change in government travel advice was caused by the proceedings and if mootness principles apply

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents were entitled to their costs because Ryanair's application was dismissed in its entirety, the issues on which Ryanair prevailed did not materially affect the proceedings, the case was brought by a well-resourced commercial entity for its own interests, and the issues raised were not of such general public importance as to justify a departure from the default rule. The change in government travel advice did not render the proceedings moot in a manner that would entitle Ryanair to costs.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to respondents against Ryanair; notice party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • Order for costs in favour of the respondents as against Ryanair, including costs of solicitor and two counsel for a three-day hearing, written submissions, and paper-based costs application, to be measured in default of agreement.
  • Aer Lingus to bear its own costs.