State ordered to pay 75% of costs in promissory notes case

The State has been ordered to pay 75 per cent of the substantial legal costs incurred by United Left TD Joan Collins of her "exceptional" although unsuccessful High Court challenge to the Minister for Finance's decision to issue €31 billion promissory notes in favour of Anglo Irish Bank and the Educational Building Society.

The State had asked the High Court to award legal costs against the TD because she has decided to appeal the three judge High Court ruling to the Supreme Court. Had Ms Collins decided not to exercise her right to apepal, the State had said it would not seek its costs against her.

In its reserved judgment today fon the costs issue, the three-judge High Court found Ms Collins, despite losing the case, was entitled to have 75 per cent of her costs puid by the State due to the exceptional issues raised in the case affecting the operation of the State’s finances. Many of those issues had not been previously considered, it noted.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly, sitting with Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, said the court considered it was in the public interest the constitutionality of the "far-reaching" legislation which permitted the issuing of the promissory notes should be judicially determined.

A critical issue raised by Ms Collins in the case was whether the concept of appropriation of public monies should be subject to a set limit. Had that been foud to be correct, it would have affected budgetary allocation in “a far-reaching manner”, he said.

The court considered the case merited departure from the general rule that costs go to the winning party because of the importance of the novel question of constitutional law raised; the weighty issues in the litigation; the importance to the State and its citizens that the constitutionality of the “important and novel” executive and legislative decisions with far-reaching consequences be judicially determined; the fact Ms Collins is a public representative who did not act for personal advantage and that the State ultimately did not challenge her legal standing to raise the points she had; and the fact the court’s decision had clarified and provided certainty for the State in the operaion of its financial procedures.

On those grounds, Ms Collins was entitled to 75 per cent of her costs but, given she had lost the case, would have to pay the remaining 25 per cent, he said. The court did not consider it was appropriate she should get her full costs, even if the exceptional nature of the litigation meant she should get “a significant share”.

In dismissing Ms Collins’s action last November, the High Court ruled the promissory notes were validly issued under a law which was constitutional.