The High Court has allowed the Legal Aid Board to seek execution of a Supreme Court costs order against Dolores Mannion, refusing her request to stay enforcement until other proceedings are decided.
Mr Justice Noonan’s judgment, delivered on 26 October 2018, concerned the Board’s application for leave to execute an order made on 26 February 2010. The order required Ms Mannion to pay the costs of her unsuccessful appeal in judicial review proceedings. Those costs were later taxed, and a certificate of taxation issued on 22 July 2014. Because more than six years had passed, the Board needed the court’s permission to issue execution.
The Board’s director of Civil Legal Aid said the Board had considered execution unwarranted because Ms Mannion appeared unable to repay the costs. He said her financial position had since improved. The judge found that the change was linked to a settlement payment made to Ms Mannion in January 2017 in separate professional-negligence proceedings against the Board. The payment was made by the Board but discharged by its insurers.
Ms Mannion said she had been deeply indebted before the settlement, had used what remained to repay debts and fund further litigation, and had borrowed more money. She also alleged that the settlement included an agreement by the Board to waive the appeal costs. The Board disputed that claim. The judge said he could not determine the settlement terms on the material before him, which included contradictory hearsay correspondence. He also noted that no proceedings had been brought to enforce or set aside the alleged settlement on that basis.
Applying the approach in *Smyth v Tunney*, the judge said an applicant seeking leave to execute after six years must give some reason for the delay, while the question of prejudice is central. He accepted that the Board had reasonably believed execution would be futile while Ms Mannion could not pay, and that the settlement gave it reason to think her circumstances had changed. He considered her claimed inability to pay arose from how she had chosen to use the settlement funds and did not amount to unfair prejudice defeating the application.
The judge also rejected the argument that the Board was estopped from seeking execution, and said that any possible breach of Ms Mannion’s Article 6 rights would not affect the existing Supreme Court order. He granted the Board leave to issue execution and refused a stay pending the outcome of Ms Mannion’s other proceedings against the Board and the State.