The High Court has ordered Patrick (otherwise Paddy) Rochford to pay the defendants’ measured legal costs after rejecting his request to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the outcome of a case.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the supplemental costs judgment on 25 July 2025, after written submissions from both sides. The underlying tort action had been dismissed in a principal judgment delivered on 8 May. Rochford had claimed €500,000 for alleged false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and malicious procurement of a search warrant.
Rochford, who represented himself, argued that a costs order would cause genuine hardship. He submitted that he was 78, had no income other than a State Pension and had brought the case in good faith, seeking vindication. The judge said financial hardship alone was not enough to displace the ordinary costs position in this case, which could not be characterised as public interest litigation.
The judge noted that the action sought private law damages, raised no point of law of general public importance and was not the kind of case where costs would be expected to deter a class of potential litigants. The claimed damages had been valued at €500,000.
The court also rejected the argument that good faith justified a different costs order. The judge said reasonableness for costs purposes required more than good faith. The governing law was settled, and, in light of uncontradicted evidence, Rochford’s claim had little prospect of success. The judgment referred to the principal judgment’s rejection of his evidence on the main factual dispute as dishonest and its criticism of serious allegations that he later contradicted.
Rochford had also offered in his submissions to withdraw separate proceedings against other defendants. The offer came after the present case had already been dismissed and could not have saved the costs of the trial, the judge said.
The order directs the defendants to recover costs of and incidental to the proceedings, covering nine hearing days. No costs are recoverable for the day lost because of Rochford’s illness. The order includes costs of written submissions, reserved costs and the written submissions on costs. If the parties cannot agree the amount, it will be measured by the Legal Costs Adjudicator under Part 10 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
The court stressed that it was deciding who should bear the costs, not how they might later be enforced. Execution of the order will be stayed if an appeal or an application for leave to appeal is brought, pending its determination or further order. The judgment said hardship may be relevant to certain enforcement measures, including deductions from social welfare payments.