The Supreme Court has limited the legal costs payable to a guardian ad litem who was joined to proceedings brought on behalf of an anonymised minor concerning the Child and Family Agency's compliance with a special care order.
The child, B, had spent earlier periods in special care before the High Court made a further special care order on December 14, 2023. The judgment records that the order was not being implemented because no special care bed was available. B, suing through his mother, then commenced separate plenary proceedings in January 2024 seeking a declaration that the CFA was in contempt of court.
A guardian ad litem who had represented B's interests in the special care proceedings was joined as a notice party. The CFA unsuccessfully sought to have that joinder set aside and did not appeal the joinder order itself. The High Court later awarded the guardian her legal costs against the Agency.
The Supreme Court had already ruled separately that the High Court could make a contempt finding against a State agency in proceedings of this kind. The present judgment dealt only with the guardian's entitlement to costs.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan held that the guardian should not, in law, have been joined to the plenary proceedings. B was already a party, suing through his mother and represented by his own legal team. The court also found that the guardian's role in the plenary case had ultimately been limited.
However, because the High Court had formally joined the guardian and the CFA never appealed that order, the guardian was entitled to act on the basis that her participation had been authorised.
Balancing that position against the need to avoid public funds paying for duplicative legal representation, the Supreme Court reduced the High Court costs award to one day's costs. It made no further costs award for the remaining High Court participation or the substantive Supreme Court appeal.