The High Court dismissed a judicial review brought by Sherifat Ajibade Idris and her minor son, Samaad Odeyemi Bolarinwa Idris, after their solicitor was permitted to come off record. It ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the Legal Aid Board and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The court refused the Board’s separate application to make the solicitor personally pay some or all of its costs.
The case had initially sought an order requiring the Board to give the applicants’ current lawyers its file from the first applicant’s asylum proceedings, and an injunction preventing her deportation. By the substantive hearing on 27 November 2009, the applicants’ solicitor, Niall Sheerin & Co., sought permission to withdraw. The Minister and the Board sought dismissal and costs; the Board also pursued an application under Order 99, rule 7, concerning costs it said had been wasted.
The court adjourned the matter for an affidavit about the solicitor’s contact with the first applicant and the advice given to her, including advice about reporting under the deportation order. In an affidavit, Mr Sheerin said he met her on 23 November, gave her the Chief State Solicitor’s 20 November letter and advised her to report to the Garda National Immigration Bureau. He said he had told her he could not continue acting if she failed to report. After learning she had not reported, he tried to contact her using a mobile number that was no longer operating and had been unable to reach her.
The judge concluded that Mr Sheerin had no further instructions and could not continue to represent her. Because the judicial review would not proceed, the court dismissed it with costs for both respondents against the applicants.
The Board argued that the solicitor should pay its costs directly. The court said such an order required misconduct involving breach of duty to the court or at least gross negligence, and should be made sparingly. It found that continuing the claim against the Board after its file had been transferred was a misjudgment that led to wasted costs. But it viewed the decision as misjudgment rather than serious misconduct or gross negligence, noting it may have followed counsel’s advice. The court therefore declined to make a personal costs order against the solicitor and made the normal costs order.