The High Court has awarded J.M. his full costs of an appeal against a compensation award, after increasing the special damages for loss of earnings by approximately €70,000. The costs judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 6 March 2012, followed an earlier judgment on the appeal delivered on 23 February.
The appeal was a rehearing of J.M.’s compensation claim after he rejected the Hepatitis C and HIV Compensation Tribunal’s award. The court reassessed both general and special damages. It left general damages at the amount set by the Tribunal, but added €25,000 for earnings lost between 1988 and 1992, €62,000 for losses already covered by the Tribunal’s award, and €42,000 for future earnings not covered by that award. The judgment said the net effect was to increase the Tribunal’s special-damages award by about €70,000.
The Minister for Health and Children argued that J.M. should receive no costs for the general-damages issue, which he had not won. The Minister proposed that the court could make no costs order for that issue, exclude costs for some witnesses and reports, assess the costs, or reduce the legal fees. The Minister also relied on the earlier judgment’s approach to assessing damages for a claimant with co-infections who had received a prior award for a different infection.
For J.M., counsel argued that the medical evidence was necessary both for the earnings claim and to answer the Minister’s stated intention to seek a reduction in general damages. He also submitted that the Minister had substantially failed on that issue because the court did not reduce the Tribunal’s award.
Justice Irvine said costs should usually follow the outcome, while recognising that courts can adjust costs where a party has unsuccessfully pursued a distinct issue that added substantial time or expense. Here, all appeal issues were heard in one day. She accepted that medical evidence about J.M.’s HIV status and life expectancy was important to the special-damages claim as well as the general-damages issue. The judgment also referred to upcoming HCV treatment and a liver transplant as potentially life-threatening interventions for his otherwise stable HIV status.
The court therefore allowed J.M. his full appeal costs. Justice Irvine said she might have considered a percentage reduction had the court awarded less in general damages than the Tribunal, but concluded that the circumstances did not warrant one. The judgment addressed the costs of the appeal; it did not alter the earlier damages award beyond the amounts already described.