A lesbian couple are to appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court ruling that they do not have the right to marry here under the Constitution.
Dr Katherine Zappone and Dr Ann Louise Gilligan said they intended to appeal against the findings of Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne in their case.
Dr Gilligan said they believed clarification by the Supreme Court of the issues raised in their action was not only in their own interest but also in the public interest.
In her landmark judgment last week, Ms Justice Dunne ruled that marriage is understood under the 1937 Constitution to be confined to persons of the opposite sex. She also rejected claims by Dr Zappone and Dr Gilligan that the refusal to permit them marry here breaches their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
Dr Zappone, a public policy consultant and member of the Human Rights Commission, and Dr Gilligan, an academic, had brought their action against the Revenue Commissioners and the State. It ran for eight days last October.
The matter came before Ms Justice Dunne again today in relation to the issue of costs.
Donal O'Donnell SC, for the State parties, said his side were not seeking their costs against the couple but rejected arguments that the State should pay the couple's costs.
Gerard Hogan SC, for the couple, said he was grateful the State was not seeking its costs against his clients but believed the State should bear their costs because of the importance of the issues raised in the proceedings.
Ms Justice Dunne said the normal rule on costs was that they follow the event - are paid by the losing party but the State was not seeking its costs against the couple.
In this case, the court had been asked to look at "well-charted constitutional territory" and interpret that in a different way in light of a law not challenged in the case, the judge said.
With "a degree of reluctance" because she understood what was involved in brining a case to court, she believed there were no exceptional circumstances to justify an order for costs in favour of the couple against the State.
In the circumstances, she would make no order for costs - meaning each side pays their own costs.