19/10/2017
The Apple Case brought up two legal phrases have been discussed at length this week on our local social media - Judicial Review and Legal Costs.
There appears to be a worrying view developing that the rules around both of these areas should be changed. In my view, this is wrong.
I hope the following note might assist people in understanding why I believe it is so important that costs are protected in the Judicial Review process.
I am talking Judicial Reviews generally and not simply Judicial Reviews in the context of planning or environment related decisions.
1. What is a Judicial Review (JR)?
A JR is a legal process whereby any citizen can ask the High Court to decide whether a decision of a State body (including semi state or public body) has been made correctly. It can also be used where a citizen wants to compel a state body to make a decision. Only in exceptional circumstances would the High Court examine the fact of a case or whether the decision was right or wrong but rather the High Court looks at whether the state decision maker followed the correct procedure in making the decision.
This usually involves examining one of the fundamental rights of the citizen - the Right to a Fair Procedure.
So the JR procedure is an essential function in keeping the State in check and ensuring citizens rights are protected.
In recent decades, the right of a citizen to challenge decisions of the State has been increasingly eroded. With excuses like lack of funding, Court delays or in the case of Apple, delay in the decision making process etc, successive Governments have tightened up the rules around taking a JR. For example, a Citizen used to have 6 months to bring a JR case, now they only have 3.
The other obvious restriction on taking a JR is the high costs involved.
2. Legal Costs:
Legal costs is something that has occupied a lot of my profession's time and energy in recent times. There is much debate internally and within the media about the cost in running cases. Indeed our new Chief Justice has flagged the cost of access to justice as a matter he intends to deal with.
However, the point that I would like to discuss is whether a citizen's legal costs should be protected when making a Judicial Review application. As most people will be aware, in this country we operate a winner takes all approach towards legal fees in that where a person wins his case, the loser usually is left to pay the costs of both parties.
However, in a Judicial Review -there are several exceptions to this principal - the reason being that a citizen does not have the same resources as a state body and where he/she has presented an application that raises a serious question and is granted leave to have this question heard by the High Court - unless the case turns out to be frivolous or vexatious the citizen is protected on costs.
While we may need to look at how we apply our environmental protection laws and planning laws going forward - I believe the last thing that we should be advocating for is further restrictions on bringing Judicial Review proceedings or on how the Costs of such cases are dealt with.
www.cuddy.ie