Background
Finbar Tolan brought proceedings against his former solicitors, John Brady and John Dillon-Leetch (trading as Dillon Leetch and Comerford Solicitors), claiming damages arising from an unsuccessful action they had brought on his behalf against Connaught Gold Cooperative Society. The High Court dismissed his claim by judgment on 26 February 2025, delivered by Owens J.
Tolan appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 26 March 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and indicated its preliminary view that, as the respondent solicitors had been entirely successful, they were entitled to the costs of the appeal. Tolan was afforded liberty to submit arguments for a different costs order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal confirmed that under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015, costs ordinarily follow the event. Although the court retains a discretion to depart from this rule where the interests of justice require it, Tolan failed to identify any special circumstances justifying departure. His assertions regarding fraud and perjury were unsupported by any affidavit or substantive evidence, and his attempt to argue forgery on appeal contradicted his express rejection of this argument in the High Court proceedings.
The Court rejected Tolan’s submission that public interest considerations should displace the ordinary costs rule. The proceedings were brought entirely for Tolan’s personal benefit and raised no legal principles of general interest—only issues particular to the appellant himself. The Court also dismissed his request for a stay of costs pending a review application that he failed to advance, and rejected his misplaced application for a protective costs order, which has no application to privately-funded litigation of this character.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that Tolan must pay the costs incurred by the respondent solicitors in resisting the appeal, with costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
Key Takeaways
- Costs follow the event under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015, and the court will not depart from this rule without special circumstances that Tolan failed to establish.
- Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and perjury, unsupported by grounding affidavits or evidence, will not defeat a costs order.
- Protective costs orders do not apply to privately-funded litigation brought entirely for personal gain rather than matters of public interest.
- Appellants must advance arguments consistently: abandoning a position in the High Court and attempting to resurrect it on appeal undermines credibility and will be rejected.
Why It Matters
This ruling reinforces the settled principle that unsuccessful appellants will be ordered to pay costs in the ordinary course, particularly where they have advanced no credible basis to depart from that rule. The decision provides clarity that vague assertions of fraud or public interest—without substantive evidence or identification of genuine matters of general legal principle—will not persuade courts to depart from the costs-follow-the-event principle.
For legal practitioners, the judgment serves as a cautionary note: appellate courts will scrutinize unsupported allegations and will not reward inconsistent advocacy or procedural tactics such as attempting to introduce arguments that were deliberately avoided at trial.