M.C. v Clinical Director - Central Mental Hospital
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Eagar |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] IEHC 467 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2016] 7 JIC 2514 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2014 No. 463 J.R.] |
| Date | 25 July 2016 |
[2016] IEHC 467
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Eagar J.
[2014 No. 463 J.R.]
Practice & Procedures – Conditional discharge – Entitlement of costs – Discretionary power of the Court – Exceptional circumstances – Previously not litigated matter – S. 13(A) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, 2006 as amended – Public interest
Facts: Following the judgment of the Court in the present case granting conditional discharge to the applicant, the respondent now sought an order for costs. The respondent contended that it was established that the costs should follow the event and the costs should not be made against a public body except in exceptional circumstances. The applicant argued that the main issue in the case had not been previously considered or litigated, which should be taken into account.
Mr. Justice Eagar granted the applicant half of his costs of and incidental to the proceedings, which were required to be paid by the respondents. The Court held that the present case was an exception to general rule that the costs should follow an event. The Court observed that the Court had discretion to grant an order of costs in the matters of public interest and where the question went beyond the specific issues and provided a guideline or procedure to be followed by the parliament. The Court held that the applicant had raised an issue of public interest, which was of great importance that went beyond the private interest of the applicant.
This Court gave judgment in the above case on 20th June, 2016 and an application for costs was heard by this Court on 27th June, 2016.
Mr. Finlay S.C. on behalf of the respondent applied for the costs of the case for his client. He submitted that the Supreme Court decision in Dunne v the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government [2007] I.E.S.C. 60 established that costs follow the event, save for exceptional circumstances.
He said that cases that are moot should not be taken against the Health Service Executive without proper cause. In this case, the applicant was granted all that she wished for, in that she had been unconditionally discharged. Both his client and the notice party had been in correspondence with the applicant's solicitors, indicating that in the circumstances of an unconditional discharge, they presumed that the proceedings would be withdrawn.
By letter dated 12th January, 2015 the solicitors for the applicant indicated that while some of the relief sought in their application for leave was moot, nevertheless certain reliefs had not been extinguished or rendered moot by the order for conditional discharge. Mr. Finlay referred to the Supreme Court decision of The Child and Family Agency v. O.A. [2015] I.E.S.C. 52. Mr. Finlay characterised the judgment as one where the court held that orders for costs should not be made against a public body save in exceptional circumstances.
Mr. Aston S.C. on behalf of the notice party indicated that the notice party was not seeking costs.
Dr. Craven S.C. on behalf of the applicant said he would not disagree with the position in law outlined by Mr. Finlay, however, he made two observations. The first was the net issue in the case, that is the statutory obligations pursuant to s. 13(A) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, 2006 as amended had not been previously considered or litigated and that this should be taken into account by the Court. He stated that while the Court in its final paragraph does seem to suggest an issue of mootness, the Court gave reasons why the relief was not to be granted and he argued that in those circumstances the Court should consider granting the applicant costs in the matter.
Order 99, rule 1 provides that,
‘(1) The costs of and incidental to every proceeding in the Superior Courts shall be in the discretion of those Courts respectively.’
In Grimes v. Punchestown Development Co. Ltd. [2002] 4 I.R. 515 Denham J. stated that the normal rule is that costs follow the event unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs.
Clarke J. in Veolia Water U.K. Plc. v. Fingal Co. Council (No. 2) [2006]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.C v Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital
...the CMH. 3 The trial judge's reasons for making such an order are set forth at para. 18 of his costs judgment dated 25th July 2016 ( [2016] IEHC 467) as follows:- ‘18. Whilst it is clear in this case that this was an application seeking to provide for the private interests of the applicant,......