The High Court has ruled that it cannot alter a Supreme Court costs order against Eileen Goold, despite her claim that a solicitor had assured her she would face no costs from judicial review proceedings commenced in her name.
Ms Goold said she was approached by a solicitor in 2002 and encouraged to bring proceedings against the State. According to her account, the solicitor undertook that she would suffer no financial cost. She said she later instructed the solicitor’s firm to stop the case before travelling to the United States with a sick child for hospital treatment.
The High Court made no finding on whether those instructions were given or whether any undertaking existed. The earlier proceedings continued until the Supreme Court stayed them in Goold v Collins and Others in 2004. The State subsequently obtained a costs order against Ms Goold and sought to enforce it.
Mr Justice Max Barrett stressed that Ms Goold’s allegations against the solicitor remained allegations only and had not been substantiated before the court.
The judge said that if Ms Goold believed a solicitor had breached a professional undertaking, her appropriate first course was to complain to the Law Society, which treats solicitors’ undertakings as a serious professional matter.
However, that did not affect the existing Supreme Court order. The High Court said it could neither vary that order nor prevent the State from proceeding to taxation of the costs.
Ms Goold also sought to rely on the Superior Courts rules concerning “wasted costs”, which can in some circumstances require a solicitor to bear costs caused by misconduct or default. The court held that argument came too late because the Supreme Court had already made its costs order without such a provision.
The judge noted that Ms Goold could appeal any eventual decision of the Taxing Master. He also warned that delay in satisfying the existing costs order could increase the amount due through interest.