The High Court has awarded the State defendants their full costs of opposing a protective costs order application brought by three plaintiffs in a case seeking to halt the Covid-19 vaccine programme for children. The amount is to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. The court did not order the underlying proceedings stayed, but gave the defendants liberty to apply for a stay until the costs are paid.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2023, Mr Justice Twomey said the defendants had been entirely successful in resisting the application, which had taken a full day of court time. The plaintiffs had sought protection from having to pay the defendants’ legal costs if they lost the substantive case.
The judge relied on section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 in awarding costs. The plaintiffs argued that the court had no power to award costs because the Courts Act 1924 had not been properly commenced, pointing to what they described as a missing original commencement order. The judge rejected that argument, citing a Court of Appeal decision. He also rejected the plaintiffs’ request to state a case to the Supreme Court on questions about the High Court’s status and solicitors organised as limited liability partnerships, saying he had no jurisdiction to do so.
The judge said the earlier judgment on the protective costs application had found that the underlying proceedings amounted to an abuse of process. That earlier ruling characterised claims about the vaccine as a bioweapon and comparisons of the defendants’ conduct to the Nazis as baseless and scandalous. Those characterisations are findings from the earlier ruling, as recounted in this costs judgment.
The court awarded the entire costs of the preliminary application to the defendants, finding no basis to reduce either set of defendants’ costs. It declined to measure the amount itself and directed that it be adjudicated by the Legal Costs Adjudicator in default of agreement. No stay was placed on the costs order, so the defendants may seek immediate payment once the amount is calculated.
The judgment does not itself stay the substantive proceedings. It gives the defendants liberty to apply for an order preventing the plaintiffs from continuing until the costs are paid. If such an application is made, the parties may address the court’s jurisdiction and the relevant circumstances. The judge made no advance ruling on whether a stay would be granted.