Exceptional reasons why State should not get costs, says court

THE FIVE-JUDGE Supreme Court unanimously ruled there were exceptional reasons why the State should not secure its costs against Louise O’Keeffe of Thoam, Dunmanway, Co Cork.

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said these special factors included the fact this was a test case against a public body involving complex issues of relationships between a primary school teacher whose salary is paid by the State, the employer who is manager of the school, the owner or trustee of the school and the Minister for Education.

The State had not disputed this was an important test case, he noted. Other special factors included that the case arose against a background of a substantive volume of similar cases of sexual abuse of children by adults, a significant number of which involved teachers whose salaries were paid by the State.

The exceptional circumstances might also be reflected in the fact that counsel for the Minister for Education had, while seeking his costs, told the court a “sympathetic view” would be taken with regard to executing any costs order although it was not specified what that meant, the Chief Justice added. In all those circumstances, the court’s discretion should be exercised so as to refuse the State’s application for costs.

The court directed no costs order would be made against Ms O’Keeffe in relation to the Supreme Court appeal and also set aside the High Court decision awarding costs to the State of Ms O’Keeffe’s unsuccessful hearing before that court.

Some 200 other cases were awaiting the outcome of Ms O’Keeffe’s action last December when the Supreme Court ruled the State bore no vicarious liability for actions of the school principal in this case because there was no employer/employee relationship between them.

The court, comprised of the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Susan Denham, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan and Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, reserved its decision on costs to yesterday. The Chief Justice said the normal rule is that costs are awarded to the winning party but the courts may depart from that principle where exceptional circumstances are shown.

This was a test case governing a significant number of other cases on a very substantive issue concerning vicarious liability of the Minister for Education for sexual assaults on pupils by primary school teachers whose salaries are paid by the Minister, he said.

While not in itself a reason to depart from the normal costs principles, the fact a case is a substantive test case to which the State is a party was a factor to be taken into account, he said.

There were special factors in this case, he said. Recently, a substantive volume of cases had come before the courts arising out of sexual assault of children by adults, a significant number involving teachers with State-paid salaries. In this case, the issues concerning alleged liability of the Minister and State arose in the context of what were complex relationships between a primary school teacher whose salary is paid by the State; the employer who is manager of the school; the owners or trustees of the school, the Minister, and the State.