Dunnes Stores was yesterday awarded the costs of its successful Supreme Court appeal against a High Court decision which found that the Tanaiste had properly appointed an authorised officer to two of its companies.
Last week, in a reserved judgment, the Supreme Court set aside the entire High Court order made in the challenge by Dunnes to the officer's appointment and directed the case should be fully reheard by the High Court.
When the matter returned to the Supreme Court yesterday to decide the costs issue, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, ruled that Dunnes should get the costs of the half-day Supreme Court appeal. The costs will be paid by the State.
He also ruled that the costs of the 11-day High Court hearing should follow the outcome of the rehearing in that court. A date has yet to be fixed for the rehearing of the case.
Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for Dunnes, had argued the effect of the High Court decision was that there was no result for anyone and the costs of the failure of the court process should be met by the State.
Last July, in his judgment on Dunnes' High Court challenge to the appointment of Mr Gerard Ryan as authorised officer to Dunnes Stores Ireland Company and Dunnes Stores (Ilac Centre) Ltd, Mr Justice Kinlen found Ms Harney had properly appointed the authorised officer.
However, he also held that Mr Ryan had exceeded his powers in the manner in which he made demands for documents from the company.
An appeal by the Dunnes companies and Ms Margaret Heffernan, a director of the companies, together with a cross-appeal by the State and Mr Ryan against the High Court decision that Mr Ryan exceeded his powers came before the Supreme Court last December.
As a preliminary point, Dunnes asked the Supreme Court to return the matter to the High Court to be reheard in full. Dunnes argued the High Court had failed to determine a number of issues put before it during the hearing, including the issue of the constitutionality of Section 19 of the Companies Act 1990, which deals with powers to require production of documents from companies.
The Supreme Court agreed the High Court should have decided the constitutional issue and remitted the matter for a full rehearing to the High Court.
The Supreme Court stated the High Court could not determine the constitutional issue in isolation from the other issues in the case and, in the rehearing, should first determine the non-constitutional issues in light of the affidavits already filed and such oral evidence as was regarded appropriate.
When applying for costs, Mr Nesbitt, for Dunnes, said his clients had had to prepare the appeal on all of the issues raised in the High Court, notwithstanding the fact that the appeal ultimately dealt only with the preliminary issue.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for Ms Harney and the State, said it was unfair that the entire costs of the Supreme Court appeal should be paid by his clients. He said the appeal was heard over only half a day and addressed only the preliminary issue raised by Dunnes.
