Important Developments for Insurance Defence Practitioners and the District Court Costs Scale Following Nolan v. County Registrar (IECA, 2025)
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Kevin Nolan v. County Registrar for the County of Waterford & Ors. [2025] IECA 110 offers significant clarification on the legal treatment of costs in personal injury litigation where proceedings are brought in the Circuit Court but damages ultimately fall within the jurisdiction of the District Court.
This judgment will be of particular interest to insurers and defence solicitors dealing with District Court personal injury claims. It underscores the principle that parties who choose to litigate in a higher court bear the risk of recovering only lower jurisdictional costs if their award does not justify the forum.
Case Background
Kevin Nolan suffered a personal injury while walking along a public footpath in Dungarvan in April 2018. Proceedings were issued in the Circuit Court against multiple defendants, including Waterford City and County Council, KC Cable Vision Ltd, and Virgin Media. After a fully contested hearing, he was awarded €8,000 in damages — a figure well within the jurisdiction of the District Court. A differential costs order was made, awarding Nolan costs on the District Court scale.
Despite the scale order, Nolan’s legal team submitted a bill of costs amounting to €32,986.89. The County Registrar allowed costs of €8,755.78, applying the District Court scale. This sparked judicial review proceedings in which Nolan challenged the legality of the scale, the Registrar’s application of it, and broader issues relating to legal costs regulation.
Main Issues on Appeal
There were four core issues considered by the Court of Appeal:
-
Whether the District Court scale of costs unlawfully restricted recoverable costs under s.17(4) of the Courts Act 1981.
-
Whether the County Registrar had failed to discharge his duty under s.141 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
-
Whether the scale and relevant rules were ultra vires the District Court Rules Committee.
-
Whether the appellant’s constitutional right of access to the courts had been breached.
Findings of the Court
1. District Court Scale Is Lawful and Proportionate
The Court upheld the validity of the District Court scale of costs, affirming the High Court’s interpretation. It accepted that fixing costs for the “doing of a specified thing in a particular form of action” — such as obtaining a judgment in a defended claim — was permissible under s.17(4). The Court reaffirmed the legislative policy underpinning differential costs orders: to ensure proportionality between the amount of damages awarded and the legal costs incurred, and to promote litigation in the appropriate jurisdiction.
This decision is a strong endorsement of the cost-efficiency principle long recognised in Irish personal injury litigation. The Court noted that proceedings brought unnecessarily in a higher court place undue cost burdens on defendants and the justice system, and that rules like the District Court scale help prevent this.
2. Breach of Statutory Duty Under s.141
Significantly, the Court found that the County Registrar failed to comply with s.141 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. That section obliges a County Registrar, when taxing costs, to have regard to the reasonableness principles set out in Schedule 1 of the Act. The Registrar’s decision had relied solely on the scale and made no reference to those statutory principles.
Although the point had not been raised at the adjudication hearing, the Court held that the obligation under s.141 was clear and mandatory. As such, the Registrar’s failure to apply it invalidated the adjudication. The decision was quashed and remitted.
This finding introduces a new procedural safeguard that insurance defence practitioners should be aware of, particularly in cases involving differential cost orders where District Court scales are applied by a County Registrar.
3. No Breach of Access to Justice
The Court dismissed Nolan’s claim that the operation of the costs regime infringed his constitutional right of access to the courts. He had, in fact, accessed the courts and obtained a decree. The discrepancy between the costs claimed and those awarded, in the Court’s view, did not amount to a denial of access.
Importantly, the Court also noted that Nolan had not availed of options under the rules that allow for exceptions — such as seeking increased costs due to special circumstances — and that his claim lacked evidential support.
4. District Court Rules Committee Acted Within Its Powers
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that Order 53 of the District Court Rules and the associated costs schedule were ultra vires the rule-making powers granted under s.91 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. The rules were found to fall squarely within the scope of “practice and procedure” and “questions of costs,” and did not intrude upon legislative functions reserved to the Oireachtas.
The Court distinguished the facts from those in DPP v. McGrath, where a rule completely precluding recovery of costs was struck down as a policy choice outside the scope of the Rules Committee. In contrast, the District Court scale provides for costs recovery, includes exceptions for special circumstances, and is subject to regular review.
Practical Implications for Insurers and Defence Lawyers
This judgment reinforces the existing framework around differential costs and confirms the limited recoverability of legal costs when proceedings are brought in a higher jurisdiction unnecessarily.
-
Forum Selection Remains Crucial
Plaintiffs who issue in the Circuit Court when the District Court is appropriate may face cost consequences, even if successful. Defence teams should continue to challenge jurisdiction early and flag cost exposure where possible. -
Emphasis on Cost Proportionality
The Court’s interpretation of s.17(4) strengthens the rationale that costs must be proportionate to the level of damages. It gives further support to insurers resisting inflated costs claims where damages are modest. -
Challenges to the District Court Costs Scale Unlikely to Succeed
The Court has made clear that the District Court Costs Scale is legally sound and within the authority of the Rules Committee. Arguments that the scale unlawfully restricts access to justice or oversteps its mandate are unlikely to gain traction in future.
Conclusion
This case provides helpful clarification for practitioners and insurers alike. It confirms the continuing validity of the District Court Costs Scale in the context of differential costs orders, while also reinforcing that County Registrars must apply the legal cost assessment principles set out in the 2015 Act. The ruling strikes a balance between efficiency in legal proceedings and statutory fairness in cost adjudications — and is likely to be cited in many cost disputes going forward.
Should you require any further information on legal costs in Ireland, use our online contact portal to speak to a member of the team.
