The High Court has awarded the Committee of a Ward of Court 60% of its costs in proceedings over the Ward’s care, while excluding all costs for one day of a four-day hearing in March 2019.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald delivered the costs judgment on 24 January 2020. The dispute concerned the Ward’s care arrangements and a Do Not Resuscitate Direction (DNR). The court had approved a care plan proposed by the HSE, as modified to provide 30 days of respite care each year. It did not decide whether the HSE could be compelled by court order to fund the more extensive package sought by the Committee: the Committee chose not to ask the court to determine that legal issue at that stage.
The HSE had initially proposed residential care at a Community Nursing Unit. After receiving a medical report, it proposed a homecare plan in February 2019. The Committee sought two healthcare assistants at home around the clock, while the HSE’s plan relied on one assistant and required the Ward’s parents to provide care when the assistant was absent. Following the court’s May 2019 judgment and a further hearing in June, the HSE amended its plan to add a second assistant for 30 days annually. The court approved the resulting plan in July 2019.
The Committee argued that it had substantially succeeded because the Ward would remain at home and the respite provision was added after the court raised concerns. The HSE said the approved plan was substantially its February proposal and that it had succeeded in resisting the Committee’s requested level of care. It did not seek costs against the Committee.
The judge found that both sides had achieved some success. The Committee secured continued care at home, but the approved package fell short of its proposal for two assistants throughout the year. It also abandoned its original position on the DNR and agreed to the terms proposed by the HSE. The court treated the Committee as unsuccessful on that issue.
The judge said the hearing’s time could not be divided precisely between successful and unsuccessful issues. He set the Committee’s share at 60%, taking account of its partial success on homecare, its failure on the DNR, and the hearing time spent on its request for round-the-clock care by two assistants. He also rejected the HSE’s argument that the Committee should lose costs for refusing the February proposal, because the July plan included a significant respite modification prompted by the court’s concerns.
The costs ruling did not determine whether the HSE could be legally compelled to fund a care package set by the court. The judge said it was unnecessary to address the HSE’s additional arguments about discretionary factors once he had decided costs under the applicable court rules.