The High Court has struck out proceedings against Fintan Hinch after the plaintiffs did not oppose his application, and awarded costs to both defendants against Miriam Bracken on a legal practitioner and client basis.
In a judgment delivered on 23 November 2023, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the application by Hinch was to strike out the case against him as bound to fail and therefore an abuse of process. The court made that order. The ruling did not decide any further application for interlocutory relief.
The judgment follows an earlier ruling on 21 July 2023, in which the court refused the plaintiffs’ application for interlocutory relief and struck out the proceedings against Geraldine Claffey on the same basis. That earlier judgment was cited as [2023] IEHC 456.
Claffey sought her costs against Miriam Bracken on a legal practitioner and client basis. The judge said that such an award should be rare, but considered it warranted for reasons given in the July judgment. He referred to the motivation for bringing the proceedings, what he described as serious and deliberate misleading of the court at the ex parte stage, and an attempt to obtain orders that would undermine an earlier court order. He said that conduct, individually and together, was of a “scandalous sort”.
Hinch sought costs and argued that they should be set off against the legacies left to the two minor plaintiffs. The judge acknowledged the argument that the proceedings had been brought ostensibly to protect the children’s inheritance and had failed. However, he declined to depart from the general rule that costs are awarded against the next friend rather than the minor plaintiffs. He said there was no evidence that Miriam Bracken lacked sufficient assets to meet a costs award.
The court ordered that Hinch’s costs be paid by Miriam Bracken on a legal practitioner and client basis, as well as Claffey’s costs. The judge said Hinch may be entitled to recover from the relevant estate costs incurred defending proceedings brought against him in his capacity as personal representative. The ruling granted the parties liberty to apply in relation to anything arising from it.