How can people afford to take a High Court Case

Donald Trump

Is it the case that it is either people with an awful lot of money, or people with no money who can take a case to the High Court?


I saw this article today about a Romanian chef taking a High Court case due to his PUP being cancelled when he left Ireland and went back to Romania.


https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/1214/1184440-pandemic-unemployment-payment/


You also see cases of people who drag out things for years even though there is no way that they can afford to pay the costs they are incurring (One that springs to mind is that Nigerian chancer lady who was deported about 10 years ago after running up bills of something like a million quid).


I understand the importance of access to the courts but it seems to me that the same access is quite available to the responsible people in the middle who can't afford to take the risk.


What happens in the likes of the Romanian chef (let's assume, hypothetically, with no offence intended, that he doesn't have a few hundred grand sitting around to pay legal bills if he loses)

whippet

Is there any reason why the two cases you have used to ask your question were involving foreigners .. rather than any of the countless high court actions taken by Irish people?

I’m no legal expert but I do know that wealth shouldn’t be a barrier to accessing the court system - but with all legal actions the is a risk if you are saddled with the costs after the facts

Donald Trump

whippet wrote: »

Is there any reason why the two cases you have used to ask your question were involving foreigners .. rather than any of the countless high court actions taken by Irish people?

I’m no legal expert but I do know that wealth shouldn’t be a barrier to accessing the court system - but with all legal actions the is a risk if you are saddled with the costs after the facts

Pick a similar High court action out of the "countless" ones taken by an Irish person if you want.


The only high-profile recent case of an Irish person that immediately sprang to mind was Thomas Reid. But if he lost his assets were being CPO'd and he'd have had the money to pay.


Maybe some of the ones that are taken by objectors to different infrastructure projects - say Glen of the Downs or that kind of thing. But for those, I'd assume there are backers or at least a movement behind them.


But, by all means, point out some of the countless Irish ones if you want to attempt to make something of the question that it isn't in order to virtue signal or whatever it is.


(At least I picked one male and one female example! Diversity what have ya!)

whippet

You can read it as virtue signalling if you want that up to you.

Are you suggesting that if you don't have a war chest of money or assets that you shouldn't have access to the courts system?

Donald Trump

whippet wrote: »

You can read it as virtue signalling if you want that up to you.

Are you suggesting that if you don't have a war chest of money or assets that you shouldn't have access to the courts system?

Try reading the opening post a little more slowly

I understand the importance of access to the courts but it seems to me that the same access is quite available to the responsible people in the middle who can't afford to take the risk.

I am merely asking how does one manage to access the courts for a scenario like this? It is merely a question about the system. The amount at stake is small compared to whatever expense will be incurred. Most chefs would not be on big money so lets assume this fella doesn't have a barrister on a retainer. What kind of money would a person generally need to put up up front to take a case? I know the stamp duty for filing fees is not actually that high.





(BTW, unlike yourself, I did not assume that the Romanian fella does not also hold Irish citizenship! It never crossed my mind. The question was nothing to do with citizenship)




If you don't know the answers then it is fine. If you want to start a thread specifically on foreigners then please do that and don't try to hijack mine.

whippet

You are assuming that these people can't afford justice


this gives an outline to the process
https://www.courts.ie/initiating-proceedings-high-court


this will give an outline to the fees
https://www.courts.ie/content/common-court-fees

The costs of retaining legal council is a matter for the individual and their chosen legal team.

As with all legal battles there is a risk of loss and anyone taking a HC case needs to weigh up the chances of winning with loosing and the potential risk.

And a little info on how to recoup awards / costs etc

https://www.courts.ie/execution-enforcement

The Taxing Master has a role to play also

whippet

Donald Trump wrote: »

(BTW, unlike yourself, I did not assume that the Romanian fella does not also hold Irish citizenship! It never crossed my mind. The question was nothing to do with citizenship)

of course not

Donald Trump

whippet wrote: »

of course not

ok sorry.

Donald Trump

whippet wrote: »

You are assuming that these people can't afford justice


this gives an outline to the process
https://www.courts.ie/initiating-proceedings-high-court


this will give an outline to the fees
https://www.courts.ie/content/common-court-fees

The costs of retaining legal council is a matter for the individual and their chosen legal team.

As with all legal battles there is a risk of loss and anyone taking a HC case needs to weigh up the chances of winning with loosing and the potential risk.

And a little info on how to recoup awards / costs etc

https://www.courts.ie/execution-enforcement

The Taxing Master has a role to play also

Why would a person take this issue to the High Court though? Do they have to because it is against the government? Because I'd imagine that the amount at stake is far below the limits of lower courts



I know someone who had employment issues with a state body a few years years ago. They got legal advice from solicitor and then barrister. But they were advised against letting it reach the High Court and told to accept a relatively low settlement, even though they had a decent chance of winning, because they would be potentially liable for massive fees and costs if they did not win.



So when I see someone going to the High Court for a few weeks of missed payments of 350 quid, it makes me wonder how they are getting that far.



I only brought up the other lady because it was well published at the time that the expenses that she incurred would never be paid. And she was also deported so she would never have to pay back anything even if she came into money afterwards.



Is it the case that if you have nothing that can be taken, that you can access these things a little easier? Because if you win then you win and if you lose the case, you literally have nothing to lose?


Or might it be the case that someone else is using that case to further their own issues? I mean a third party financing it or even a legal person doing it for free in the hope of winning and advertising themselves?

Claw Hammer

All judicial review applications have to be made to the High Court. It is not a case of suing in contract for a sum equal to a few weeks wages. It is a complaint about the exercise of a powers by a decision maker and an application for an order quashing the decision.
Most people with modest assets will be reluctant to take a Judicial Review because of the consequences of an adequate costs order.
People with no means at all often take Judicial Review if they can find a solicitor on a no foal no fee basis. If they lose they just won't pay the costs and the state won't chase them.

coylemj

Donald Trump wrote: »

Is it the case that if you have nothing that can be taken, that you can access these things a little easier? Because if you win then you win and if you lose the case, you literally have nothing to lose?

If you can find a lawyer to take the case, yes.

A lot of immigration cases are successful and if the minister loses, the plaintiff gets their costs. So the lawyers get paid, by the taxpayer. Which means that for a certain cohort of lawyers, it's worth pursuing the case on the basis of there being a fair chance of success.

As applies in 'no foal, no fee' personal injury cases.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Or might it be the case that someone else is using that case to further their own issues? I mean a third party financing it or even a legal person doing it for free in the hope of winning and advertising themselves?

On the question of a third party financing a case, an interesting fact came to light when former MP Neil Hamilton lost a libel case in the UK against Mohamed al Fayed in 1999. It transpired that several donors had funded Hamilton's case, which financially left them exposed when costs (five weeks in the High Court) were awarded against Hamilton.

Because at the end of the case.....

Mr Justice Morland ordered Mr Hamilton to disclose within 28 days the names of contributors who had donated £5,000 or more to his fighting fund.

I don't know if this would apply in Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/dec/21/hamiltonvalfayed.rostaylor1

Claw Hammer

Third party funding of litigation in Ireland is a crime.
https://www.rdj.ie/insights/persona-case-and-the-law-of-maintenance-and-champerty-in-ireland

spyderski

whippet wrote: »

The Taxing Master has a role to play also

Not since October 2019.

Also, Third party financing is not allowed in Ireland - it's called `Champerty".

Donald Trump

What constitutes third party funding though? I mean, one could argue that a "no foal no fee" basis is a form of third-party funding.

In the late 2000's there was a particular planning proposal for a development close to me. The locals did not want it. Also, other companies did not want it as it would bring competition to their business. A local opposition group was set up and the understanding was that they received donations from some of the companies. I *think* there were some appeals in court over it at the time. The development didn't go ahead but I think that was more to do with the recession! Maybe they had to "ringfence" the donations from the other companies.

Would a "gofundme" type of scenario for legal fees be third-party funding?

Donald Trump

Claw Hammer wrote: »

All judicial review applications have to be made to the High Court. It is not a case of suing in contract for a sum equal to a few weeks wages. It is a complaint about the exercise of a powers by a decision maker and an application for an order quashing the decision.
Most people with modest assets will be reluctant to take a Judicial Review because of the consequences of an adequate costs order.
People with no means at all often take Judicial Review if they can find a solicitor on a no foal no fee basis. If they lose they just won't pay the costs and the state won't chase them.

Ok, so that was kind of my point. (I honestly never considered the "foreigner" angle on it). I was wondering how someone whom - without meaning offense - we could assume was not loaded was able to take something to the High Court when it would be a huge decision with possible serious implications for your average person.

Victor

Sometimes, a lawyer will take a benevolent approach to fees (but not necessarily other costs).

Sometimes, a lawyer will want to use a case to establish a precedent. They can then use that precedent to win other cases on their books.

Donald Trump

Victor wrote: »

Sometimes, a lawyer will take a benevolent approach to fees (but not necessarily other costs).

Sometimes, a lawyer will want to use a case to establish a precedent. They can then use that precedent to win other cases on their books.

I understand that. But the person who takes the case could still be liable for the other side's cost too.

Marcusm

Donald Trump wrote: »

I understand that. But the person who takes the case could still be liable for the other side's cost too.

In fairness, the case involving the PUP and the person who returned to Romania for what seems like 3-4 weeks has probably been accepted on the grounds of public policy. PUP does not realistically require someone to be available for work and it is likely an infringement to preclude a recipient solely on the grounds that he exercised his right to travel out of the country as opposed to travelling to another part of Ireland which would Likely have made no difference in the context of his availability to take up work had the restrictions been lifted earlier. Having (presumably) exhausted whatever appeals procedure within DEASP it seems unlikely that there was any Avenue other than a judicial review. In fairness, I suspect Ireland has continued to collect much more significant amounts of income tax and PAYE from employees who have worked the pandemic from their home jurisdiction than paid out in PUP to those who have gone abroad temporarily.

Donald Trump

Marcusm wrote: »

In fairness, the case involving the PUP and the person who returned to Romania for what seems like 3-4 weeks has probably been accepted on the grounds of public policy. PUP does not realistically require someone to be available for work and it is likely an infringement to preclude a recipient solely on the grounds that he exercised his right to travel out of the country as opposed to travelling to another part of Ireland which would Likely have made no difference in the context of his availability to take up work had the restrictions been lifted earlier. Having (presumably) exhausted whatever appeals procedure within DEASP it seems unlikely that there was any Avenue other than a judicial review. In fairness, I suspect Ireland has continued to collect much more significant amounts of income tax and PAYE from employees who have worked the pandemic from their home jurisdiction than paid out in PUP to those who have gone abroad temporarily.

My question wasn't concerned with the details or rights or wrongs of the specific case other than that it appears to be taken for a small amount.

i.e it would appear that there is small potential upside but a lot of potential downside. Given that, I was wondering whether there were other routes through the system that I was not aware of. Or is the potential downside somehow limited for some types of cases?

Peregrinus

It's undoubtedly true that the costs of High Court/Supreme Court litigation are a major deterrent, and people are often deterred from enforcing their legal rights because the financial risk involved is greater than they care to bear.

Soemtimes when you see someone of limited means apparently fighting a High Court case, they are a "test case"; the question they are seeking an answer to is one that has implications for a wide class of people, and their case has been selected as a suitable one in which to get an answer that a lot of other people need. The case may be supported by a reprsentative body or by an advocacy/lobby group, or even occasionally by a state agency.

Claw Hammer

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ok, so that was kind of my point. (I honestly never considered the "foreigner" angle on it). I was wondering how someone whom - without meaning offense - we could assume was not loaded was able to take something to the High Court when it would be a huge decision with possible serious implications for your average person.

There are firms of solicitors who are willing to run cases like this on the hazard, taking a small or no fee in the hope of earning a big fee if the case succeeds.

Donald Trump

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There are firms of solicitors who are willing to run cases like this on the hazard, taking a small or no fee in the hope of earning a big fee if the case succeeds.

I understand that point - "no foal no fee" kind of thing, but would the same firms go guarantor for the other sides costs?

Or would costs generally not be awarded?

Donald Trump

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's undoubtedly true that the costs of High Court/Supreme Court litigation are a major deterrent, and people are often deterred from enforcing their legal rights because the financial risk involved is greater than they care to bear.

Soemtimes when you see someone of limited means apparently fighting a High Court case, they are a "test case"; the question they are seeking an answer to is one that has implications for a wide class of people, and their case has been selected as a suitable one in which to get an answer that a lot of other people need. The case may be supported by a reprsentative body or by an advocacy/lobby group, or even occasionally by a state agency.

Well that was what I was asking in relation to "third party financing". Would the third party have to somehow attach themselves to the case?

hullaballoo

Donald Trump wrote: »

I understand that point - "no foal no fee" kind of thing, but would the same firms go guarantor for the other sides costs?

Or would costs generally not be awarded?

No foal no fee type cases generally are taken on on the basis that they'll probably win, in the first instance. Solicitors in general would be very slow to take on a case on that basis if they did not think it had a high probability of success.

There is no guarantee for the other side's costs in the event the case is unsuccessful for the plaintiff. No solicitor would take that on for plain commercial reasons.

The award of costs almost always follows the event - ie to the victor the spoils. In some if not most cases that have been taken on by a solicitor on a no foal no fee basis, their client would not have the means or assets to cover an award of costs. For the winning defendant, that often means as a matter of practicality, there are no "spoils" and they have to grin and bear the costs of their successful defence themselves. Some serial defendants will pursue costs against losing plaintiffs though, particularly if they suspect there are assets like a house or something that they can recoup some costs against.

Donald Trump

hullaballoo wrote: »

No foal no fee type cases generally are taken on on the basis that they'll probably win, in the first instance. Solicitors in general would be very slow to take on a case on that basis if they did not think it had a high probability of success.

There is no guarantee for the other side's costs in the event the case is unsuccessful for the plaintiff. No solicitor would take that on for plain commercial reasons.

The award of costs almost always follows the event - ie to the victor the spoils. In some if not most cases that have been taken on by a solicitor on a no foal no fee basis, their client would not have the means or assets to cover an award of costs. For the winning defendant, that often means as a matter of practicality, there are no "spoils" and they have to grin and bear the costs of their successful defence themselves. Some serial defendants will pursue costs against losing plaintiffs though, particularly if they suspect there are assets like a house or something that they can recoup some costs against.

Well that confirms what I understood.


So in some ways you could legitimately say that these kinds of mechanisms are more accessible to those who have nothing than the average person who might have an average amount. (in the practical sense)

D13exile

The simplified argument is that only the very rich or the very poor can take a case in the High Court, all other mere mortals run the risk of near bankruptcy if they lose a case due to the scale of legal fees that pertain therein (although I'd say the same applies to the Circuit Court too where my divorce cost me €25,000!!!). Ten years ago, the infamous Troika highlighted Irish legal fees as one of the areas that required addressing but this was one area where even they failed to rectify, even though they held the reins of power for three years. Perhaps the fact that a lot of our TD's have legal backgrounds reduces the appetite for reviewing legal fees? It's also no secret that many of our esteemed Judges have links to political parties and their elevation to the bench was on foot of whatever party they are aligned to being in power at the time.

And for the record, I used to work for the Courts service and so was privy to a lot of the "behind the scenes" goings on and machinations in our Courts. Once a newly qualified BL makes it past their "devil" stage, it is easy money for what is basically a mouthpiece for the litigant. Yes they spend five years in the Kings Inns etc etc but take away the melodrama that they spout, a lay litigant can hold their own against them in a Court if they prepare well enough and get their head around the legal paperwork. After shelling out twenty five grand on legal fees in my divorce, (and due to the fact that Irish divorces are the gift that keeps on giving to the legal profession), I represented myself in the ongoing legal battles with my ex post divorce, all of which I have won to date even though she had Solicitors and barristers representing her (and costing her a lot of money in fees!). Notwithstanding this, I would be quite wary if my ex ever decided to appeal one of her losses to the High Court where an unsympathetic Judge may direct that I pay her legal costs should she be successful. That would bankrupt me, which is why I'm surprised the thought hasn't occurred to her to date.

hullaballoo

D13exile wrote: »

And for the record, I used to work for the Courts service and so was privy to a lot of the "behind the scenes" goings on and machinations in our Courts. Once a newly qualified BL makes it past their "devil" stage, it is easy money for what is basically a mouthpiece for the litigant. Yes they spend five years in the Kings Inns etc etc but take away the melodrama that they spout, a lay litigant can hold their own against them in a Court if they prepare well enough and get their head around the legal paperwork. After shelling out twenty five grand on legal fees in my divorce, (and due to the fact that Irish divorces are the gift that keeps on giving to the legal profession), I represented myself in the ongoing legal battles with my ex post divorce, all of which I have won to date even though she had Solicitors and barristers representing her (and costing her a lot of money in fees!). Notwithstanding this, I would be quite wary if my ex ever decided to appeal one of her losses to the High Court where an unsympathetic Judge may direct that I pay her legal costs should she be successful. That would bankrupt me, which is why I'm surprised the thought hasn't occurred to her to date.

Just to correct the record there. I don't know at what stage you worked in the Courts Service but it has been a very, very long time since someone in their second year at the bar was making any money to speak of never mind easy money. 2,500 barristers at the bar now all vying for the work of half that number. Most never make any serious money unless they've family who are solicitors etc. Even with those family connections, few make any kind of money inside their first 7-10 years.

The King's Inns degree is one year, not five. Unless you do the part-time modular degree over two years.

hullaballoo

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well that confirms what I understood.


So in some ways you could legitimately say that these kinds of mechanisms are more accessible to those who have nothing than the average person who might have an average amount. (in the practical sense)

Yes, there is a quirk of the system that means practically speaking, the two ends of the spectrum in terms of wealth can be gung ho about bringing a case whereas those in the middle have to be more deliberate.

It is another social unfairness on the squeezed middle. The most productive and valuable members of society who contribute the most on an individual level are again left out in the cold by policymakers in government and too busy to coalesce themselves into a lobby group to make some noise about it. Anyway, this isn't the politics forum but it is a reality that directly implicates access to justice so relevant for here.

Claw Hammer

Donald Trump wrote: »

I understand that point - "no foal no fee" kind of thing, but would the same firms go guarantor for the other sides costs?

Or would costs generally not be awarded?

Costs will be awarded against the client, not the solicitor. The client just won't pay.

Donald Trump

Can "no foal no fee" scenarios involve a cut of any payout here?


I know they are common enough in the US.

Claw Hammer

Donald Trump wrote: »

Can "no foal no fee" scenarios involve a cut of any payout here?


I know they are common enough in the US.

It would be illegal and couldn't be the subject of any written agreement.

D13exile

hullaballoo wrote: »

Just to correct the record there. I don't know at what stage you worked in the Courts Service but it has been a very, very long time since someone in their second year at the bar was making any money to speak of never mind easy money. 2,500 barristers at the bar now all vying for the work of half that number. Most never make any serious money unless they've family who are solicitors etc. Even with those family connections, few make any kind of money inside their first 7-10 years.

The King's Inns degree is one year, not five. Unless you do the part-time modular degree over two years.

I was in the High Court (working there) in the 90's. New BL's were on good money then, good enough to afford an expensive car parking space in the car park of the Four Courts. The last BL I paid for during my divorce (only 18 months practicing I later found out!), charged me €5,000 for three day's "work", ie reading her brief from my Solicitor and conducting the horse trading between my ex-wife and I to agree a settlement. There was no long case or legal argument here to justify her fee. So €1,333 per day for three day's work is nice money in my humble opinion.

hullaballoo

It was a very different picture in the 90s. There were FAR fewer noses in the trough and the trough itself was substantially bigger.

Even still, for all we know that might have been her only 3 days work all year.

Also, the car parking spaces within the Four Courts on the Church Street side are given out on a lottery basis and don't cost anything. Some are reserved for disabled barristers and also provided for no extra cost. I say no extra cost because BLs pay for membership of the library which isn't cheap.

I'm on record here saying that some barristers do earn astronomical fees that would keep up with Premier League footballers but also that you could count them on your fingers.

Claw Hammer

D13exile wrote: »

The last BL I paid for during my divorce (only 18 months practicing I later found out!), charged me €5,000 for three day's "work", .

If you worked in the courts, surely you would have learned to use the Law Directory to get the year of call of a barrister?
Did you pay the money to the barrister or the solicitor?

Victor

Eh, can't a defendant ask for security of costs?

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Eh, can't a defendant ask for security of costs?

In general not against an individual before a court of first instance. Some provision is made for it against companies.

Claw Hammer

Victor wrote: »

Eh, can't a defendant ask for security of costs?

He can ask. Same as you can ask Santa for a Porsche for Christmas. Asking is not the same as getting.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

He can ask. Same as you can ask Santa for a Porsche for Christmas. Asking is not the same as getting.

The defendant doesn't ask the plaintiff. the defendant asks the judge to make an order to that effect. if the judge does make an order then the plaintiff needs to come up with the money or security for same.

Claw Hammer

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The defendant doesn't ask the plaintiff. the defendant asks the judge to make an order to that effect. if the judge does make an order then the plaintiff needs to come up with the money or security for same.

It won't happen at first instance unless the Plaintiff is abroad or a company. It would never happen in a Judicial review in the High Court.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It would never happen in a Judicial review in the High Court.

Incorrect. Can happen. Has happened. Will happen again.

Usk and District Residents Associations Ltd v The Environmental Protection Agency [2006] IESC 1

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

Incorrect. Can happen. Has happened. Will happen again.

Usk and District Residents Associations Ltd v The Environmental Protection Agency [2006] IESC 1

That was in the case of a company.

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Incorrect. Can happen. Has happened. Will happen again.

Usk and District Residents Associations Ltd v The Environmental Protection Agency [2006] IESC 1

Claw Hammer is correct, one of the tests for such an order where an individual is concerned as opposed to a company is that they are ordinarily resident outside the state.

I took Claw’s post to mean security would never be given in a JR. I see now he meant security against an individual. I disagree, but my supporting authority isn’t persuasive

GM228

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I took Claw’s post to mean security would never be given in a JR. I see now he meant security against an individual. I disagree, but my supporting authority isn’t persuasive

Unfortunately our superior courts don't share your disagreement, it has been made very clear a resident of the state can not apply for such.

AnRothar

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It won't happen at first instance unless the Plaintiff is abroad or a company. It would never happen in a Judicial review in the High Court.

I am wondering as to how to define a "company" for the purposes of securing costs.

A plumbing business is trading over 20'years from the same address.
1 A Street
The Town.
Any county.

Joe Bloggs Plumbing Ltd.

Joe Bloggs Plumbing.

Joe and Bloggs Plumbing.

I would believe that a "Ltd" is a company and the others are some form of sole traders.

So only the first case could you see to secure costs?

Also as was mentioned only the very rich or poor realistically can take a case "for the hell of it".
Could they be deemed a "vexatious litigant" ?

Also if there is a security of costs do they lodge the money somewhere?

In this scenario would this be a good indicator that the other side have a stronger case?

ohnonotgmail

AnRothar wrote: »

I am wondering as to how to define a "company" for the purposes of securing costs.

A plumbing business is trading over 20'years from the same address.
1 A Street
The Town.
Any county.

Joe Bloggs Plumbing Ltd.

Joe Bloggs Plumbing.

Joe and Bloggs Plumbing.

I would believe that a "Ltd" is a company and the others are some form of sole traders.

So only the first case could you see to secure costs?

Also as was mentioned only the very rich or poor realistically can take a case "for the hell of it".
Could they be deemed a "vexatious litigant" ?

Also if there is a security of costs do they lodge the money somewhere?

In this scenario would this be a good indicator that the other side have a stronger case?

a company is an entity registered with the CRO that can appear as a party in its own right.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Unfortunately our superior courts don't share your disagreement, it has been made very clear a resident of the state can not apply for such.

Well, no. A resident of the State can apply for security for costs. A resident of the State cannot be the subject of an order for security for costs in a court of first instance.

And surely it is conceivable that a natural person, who is not ordinarily resident in the State, might bring a JR in this jurisdiction and therefore be subject to an application under Order 29 Rule 1?

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, no. A resident of the State can apply for security for costs. A resident of the State cannot be the subject of an order for security for costs in a court of first instance.

And surely it is conceivable that a natural person, who is not ordinarily resident in the State, might bring a JR in this jurisdiction and therefore be subject to an application under Order 29 Rule 1?

If a non resident is applying for JR, it will concern a decision by an amenable body in the state. They will have been granted leave for Judicial Review or else are required to put the Respondent on notice. It is most unlikely a public body would even attempt to make such an application and most unlikely to be granted. If leave has been granted of a decision it would mean there an arguable case that an Irish State body has in some way breached a persons rights. They would not be allowed get out of defending that by seeking security for costs.

Claw Hammer

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If a non resident is applying for JR, it will concern a decision by an amenable body in the state. They will have been granted leave for Judicial Review or else are required to put the Respondent on notice. It is most unlikely a public body would even attempt to make such an application and most unlikely to be granted. If leave has been granted of a decision it would mean there an arguable case that an Irish State body has in some way breached a persons rights. They would not be allowed get out of defending that by seeking security for costs.

So yes, it is conceivable. And if the person concerned brought the JR solely for a matter of private benefit (a planning JR, for example) then I could see how a court might direct security for costs. Particularly if the same litigant had, on prior occasions, brought JRs against the same body but had not paid the costs of same when unsuccessful.

There is conceptually no difference between a company being subject to an order for security and a natural person. There is a procedural difference to be sure, but no actual bar to it.

hullaballoo

I'm not sure the necessary leave application has a bearing on a prospective application for security for costs against an individual in a judicial review. It is possible and indeed common for both an applicant to have a case that is meritorious enough to meet the threshold for an ex parte leave application and at the same time the respondent having a stateable defence.

The major bar to an application for security for costs against an individual in a JR is for the respondent successfully establishing at an interlocutory stage that they would as a matter of probability be entitled to an order for costs against the individual applicant if successful in their defence. The nature of JR makes it unlikely as a starting point in most cases that the respondent would be awarded their costs even if they are successful.

Claw Hammer

Deleted User wrote: »

So yes, it is conceivable. And if the person concerned brought the JR solely for a matter of private benefit (a planning JR, for example) then I could see how a court might direct security for costs. Particularly if the same litigant had, on prior occasions, brought JRs against the same body but had not paid the costs of same when unsuccessful.

There is conceptually no difference between a company being subject to an order for security and a natural person. There is a procedural difference to be sure, but no actual bar to it.

The courts retain a discretion, but how it is applied in practise is another. There are other ways that frivolous and vexatious Judicial Reviews are dealt with. Isaac Wunder Orders, refusal of leave at the ex parte stage etc.