The High Court has refused to order the Health Service Executive (HSE) to pay a man’s costs after it decided not to proceed with a petition seeking to admit him to wardship. The court said the petition had been brought in good faith, on reasonable grounds and for his benefit.
Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered the judgment on 14 June 2024. It concerned the costs of the wardship proceedings, not a decision on whether the man should be admitted to wardship. The petition and inquiry had not been formally dismissed, withdrawn or struck out when the costs dispute was decided.
The HSE presented its petition in March 2021, supported by medical reports that said the man met the criteria for wardship. A court medical visitor also assessed him and supported an inquiry. The man objected and sought a jury inquiry. The HSE’s petition said he needed help with accommodation and managing his financial affairs, including an inheritance from his late brother.
After the man moved to a high-support residential placement in July 2022, Professor Patricia Casey assessed him in February 2023. She concluded that he no longer met the wardship test and could make decisions with appropriate assistance. His treating psychiatrist agreed. The HSE then told the court it would not proceed with the petition or the inquiry.
The man argued that he had succeeded because the HSE did not pursue wardship, and that the HSE should pay his costs under the general costs rules, rules on discontinued proceedings and an undertaking included in the petition. He also argued that the HSE should have obtained updated evidence of his condition earlier.
The judge found that the circumstances of wardship proceedings and the established practice in such cases justified departing from the usual approach of costs following the event. He accepted that the HSE had reasonable grounds when it brought the petition and had acted for the man’s benefit. Although the HSE could have obtained more up-to-date evidence sooner, that did not justify ordering it to pay his costs.
The court also rejected the claim that the HSE’s decision triggered a costs obligation under the rules on discontinued proceedings, or under its undertaking. The judgment concluded that the man and the HSE should each bear their own costs. The judge left open a separate application by the man’s solicitors and counsel for their costs to be paid from his estate. Final orders to end the wardship proceedings, and any such application, were listed for 26 June 2024.