The Supreme Court has decided that a man is not entitled to the costs of his successful action to reduce an award of damages made against him for having repeatedly sexually abused a woman over a number of years when she was a girl.
Last year a High Court jury had awarded €600,000 damages to the woman in her action against Simon Murphy, of Ramsgrange, near New Ross, Co Wexford. The award was for abuse inflicted in the 1990s when she was aged between 12 and 17.
On March 18th the Supreme Court, in its decision on an appeal by Mr Murphy, reduced the amount of the award to €350,000. He then sought his costs of the appeal, and the Supreme Court reserved its decision on the issue.
Giving that reserved judgment this week, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan said Mr Murphy, having obtained the reduction in the amount of the award, had then applied for his costs of the appeal against the plaintiff.
Counsel for the plaintiff had not sought that she should secure the costs of the appeal, but had submitted that there should be no order for costs.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said there was never any easy answer over who should pay the costs of an appeal where there was a reduction in damages, and where the appeal was confined to assessment of damages.
As this was a reasonably substantial case, the court had reserved judgment to consider whether any worthwhile guidelines could be formulated.
He suggested procedures which he believed might ease problems which might arise in cases such as this, but said there was still no perfect solution.
It would not be appropriate to lay down absolute norms as to how costs were to be dealt with in all cases of this kind. Every appeal had special aspects.
He said in most instances the normal rule of "costs following the event" would apply.
However, in cases where the application of the normal rule may be perceived to cause a hardship, the court must exercise its discretion, and the manner in which it exercised that discretion would differ from case to case.
In the case before the court, Mr Murphy had obtained a very substantial reduction in the plaintiff's award, and his financial position was such that there would have been no reality in making offers that might have been acceptable to the woman, notwithstanding that they involved a reduction in the damages awarded in the High Court.
The solution put forward by counsel for the plaintiff would seem to be the fairest, the judge said. Accordingly, the court would rule there should be no order on appeal costs.