The Court of Appeal struck out an appeal brought in the name of T.H., ruling that the legal practitioners who filed it had no client, instructions or lawful authority to do so. The court’s decision addressed that preliminary issue only; it did not determine the substance of the appeal against the High Court’s costs orders.
T.H. had been admitted to wardship by the High Court on 2 July 2019, after a finding that he was of unsound mind and incapable of managing his person and property. The General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court was appointed Committee of his person and estate. T.H. died on 10 April 2021.
The solicitors had originally represented T.H. in connection with the wardship proceedings. The High Court later ordered that the costs of that representation and of a costs application be paid from his estate, with the amounts to be measured. The appeal, filed on 23 November 2020, sought to overturn those orders and have the HSE pay the costs.
In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2022, Ms Justice Máire Whelan said the original retainer ended when T.H. was admitted to wardship. She found that the solicitors had not sought instructions from the Committee or obtained the President of the High Court’s authorisation before filing the appeal. The Committee had not consented to it, and the court rejected the argument that she had acquiesced by being notified of the appeal.
The judgment also found that T.H.’s executrix opposed the appeal after his death and had not ratified its continuation. The court said the legal practitioners had no authority to continue it after his death.
The court concluded that the appeal had been filed without lawful authority and that the legal practitioners lacked standing to conduct it. It ordered the purported appeal struck out. The judgment expressed a preliminary view that costs claimed by the solicitors for work on or after 2 July 2019 were not maintainable against T.H. or his estate. It invited written submissions on costs from the HSE and the General Solicitor within 21 days, with responses due within a further 21 days, and said it would then give directions, including on whether an oral hearing was needed.