The High Court ordered Dr Neil Healy to pay the costs of his claim and the defendants’ counterclaim, rejecting his application for costs against the defendants. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the ruling on 21 February 2018.
The application followed a principal judgment given on 16 January 2018. In that judgment, the court concluded that Healy’s claim failed because, in law, he had no cause of action against the defendants. It also found that the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim.
Healy argued that the defendants should bear costs. He relied on several aspects of the litigation, including that his account of a meeting at the bank on 1 August 2007 had been rejected at the first High Court hearing but accepted on the later rehearing. He also cited the issue of ostensible authority, a dispute over the late admission of evidence, and the fact that most of the rehearing concerned evidence about what happened at the meeting.
The judge said those matters did not alter the costs outcome. The late evidence issue had no material impact on costs, and review of material admitted in a less redacted form revealed no wider issue concerning the earlier redactions. The court also noted that the defendants had succeeded in defending the claim.
The proceedings began in 2008. The High Court initially dismissed Healy’s claim in 2009. The Supreme Court allowed his appeal in 2015 and remitted the case to the High Court for rehearing. The 2018 ruling addressed costs after that rehearing; it did not revisit the principal judgment’s conclusions on the claim and counterclaim.
Justice Barrett said the court was required as a matter of law to order the costs of both the claim and counterclaim against Healy. The ruling records the costs order; it does not specify an amount.