BD & Ors v International Protection Appeals Tribunal - Costs Ruling

BAILII Ireland Recent Decisions

Filed March 2nd, 2026

Detected March 20th, 2026

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ireland issued a ruling on costs in the case of BD & Ors v International Protection Appeals Tribunal. The court determined that the respondents were entitled to costs only up to the date of an open offer made by the State parties, reversing a previous Court of Appeal decision.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Supreme Court of Ireland has issued a ruling on costs concerning the case involving BD & Ors and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. The core issue revolved around whether the respondents were entitled to the full costs of litigation after the State parties conceded that a part of the original decision was flawed and offered to consent to an order of certiorari and pay costs up to that point. The Supreme Court has now reversed the Court of Appeal's decision to award full costs to the respondents.

The practical implication of this ruling is that the respondents will only be awarded costs up to the date of the State's open offer. The appellants (the Tribunal and the Minister) are entitled to the balance of the High Court and Court of Appeal costs. The Supreme Court made no order for costs in the appeal itself, citing the point of general public importance on which leave to appeal was granted. This decision underscores the risk associated with litigation and the importance of accepting reasonable settlement offers.

Source document (simplified)

| | [Home ]
[Databases ]
[World Law ]
[Multidatabase Search ]
[Help ]
[Feedback ]
[DONATE ] | |
| # Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions | | |
| You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >>

  BD & Ors v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved) [2026] IESC 14 (02 March 2026)

URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2026/2026IESC14.html
Cite as:
[2026] IESC 14 | | |
[New search ]

[Printable PDF version ]

[Help ]

AN CH?IRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

S:AP: **** IE:2024:000150

[2026] IESC 000 14

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

Woulfe J.

Collins J.

Donnelly J.

Between/

B.D., T.D. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, B.D.)

AND M.D. (A MINOR SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, B.D.)

Respondents

-and-

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

Appellants

RULING ON COSTS

In this case, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal found a) that the respondents had shown a well-founded fear of persecution but b) that they were able to avail of State protection. The respondents then instituted judicial review proceedings. Thereafter, it was at all times accepted by the State parties that conclusion b) was flawed, that the respondents had been required to institute proceedings to challenge it and that they were entitled to an order of certiorari.
The State parties accordingly, before filing opposition papers, made an open offer to consent to an order of certiorari and to pay the reasonable costs of the respondents up to that point. The offer was refused because the respondents wanted to sever the impugned decision, so that they would retain the benefit of the finding in respect of fear of persecution, while the State contended that the entire decision should be quashed and reconsidered. This was the only issue in the litigation.
The State was successful in the High Court, where no order was made as to costs. The respondents appealed and were successful in the Court of Appeal, where they were awarded costs. The decision of this Court has reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The appellants now seek their costs in each Court, on the basis that they have been entirely successful. The respondents seek their costs in this Court and the Court of Appeal, while leaving the High Court order in place.

5.?The Court is of the view that the respondents are not entitled to their costs beyond the date of the open offer. After litigating in three courts, they have obtained only that which was available to them at that point. It is, in general, in the public interest that litigation should be resolved where reasonably possible, in the sphere of public/administrative law as well as private.

Litigation is not a risk-free activity and the costs regime reflects that fact. In this case, the respondents were at risk from the time that they rejected the offer.
The Court determines that:

a) The respondents are entitled to their costs up to the date of the offer, and

b) The appellants are entitled to the balance of the High Court and Court of Appeal costs.

The Court makes no order in respect of the costs in this appeal, in consideration of the fact that leave to appeal was granted to the State parties on a point of general public importance.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2026/2026IESC14.html