Background
Matthew Wales appealed the High Court’s refusal to permit further amendments to the statement of grounds in judicial review proceedings begun in 2019. Those proceedings sought, among other relief, to prohibit the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal from hearing professional-misconduct complaints against him. The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive appeal in Wales v The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal & Anor [2026] IECA 103.
The tribunal and the Law Society had promptly conceded one point concerning Relief 7, which was not argued at the appeal hearing, but successfully opposed all 15 live grounds. On costs, Wales sought no order, or alternatively asked the court to reserve costs to the High Court, stay them until the judicial review was determined, or stay execution of any costs order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal awarded both respondents their costs of the appeal, including the costs of the costs submissions, to be assessed if not agreed. It held that they were “entirely successful” for the purposes of sections 168 and 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Their early concession on Relief 7 did not detract from that conclusion because the point was never contested at the hearing and every live, opposed ground was decided against Wales.
The court found no circumstance justifying departure from the rule that costs follow the event. It considered it unreasonable for Wales to pursue the remaining grounds after the Relief 7 concession, rejected his attempt to rely on alleged procedural defaults already decided against him, and held that his choice to represent himself did not diminish the represented respondents’ entitlement to recover legal costs. It also refused to reserve the issue to the High Court or grant either form of stay, finding no interests-of-justice basis to postpone enforcement.
Key Takeaways
- A respondent may be “entirely successful” on an appeal despite promptly conceding a point that is not contested or argued at the hearing.
- The unsuccessful party must establish a valid basis for departing from the presumptive rule that costs follow the event; self-representation does not reduce an opponent’s entitlement to recover legal costs.
- An unsuccessful interlocutory appeal may carry an immediately enforceable costs order even though the underlying judicial review remains pending.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores that Irish appellate courts treat the outcome of the appeal itself as the relevant “event” for costs. A litigant cannot ordinarily defer responsibility for an unsuccessful procedural appeal until the underlying case concludes, particularly where all contested grounds lacked merit.
It also encourages early, reasonable concessions: the respondents’ prompt acceptance of the Relief 7 point did not deprive them of full costs after they prevailed on every issue actually pursued to determination.