The High Court has refused three plaintiffs’ application for a protective costs order in proceedings seeking to halt the Covid-19 vaccination programme for children aged five to 11. The order would have protected them from paying the State defendants’ legal costs if they lost their case.
Mr Justice Twomey said the plaintiffs had not met the conditions for such an order. He found that their substantive claim had no prospect of success, but the hearing before him concerned only the protective costs application. The separate request for an injunction had been adjourned, and the court did not decide it in this judgment.
The plaintiffs’ proceedings, issued in April 2022, seek to stop the programme until further information is provided to parents and guardians. Their affidavits also refer to other proposed orders, including a public inquiry into early Covid-19 treatments and autopsies of vaccinated people under 80 who died suddenly. The judge described the allegations and material supporting those requests as unsubstantiated, and said much of it consisted of hearsay, speculation, websites and videos.
The plaintiffs argued that the case was in the public interest and sought protection from the usual rule that the losing party pays the successful party’s costs. The judge said the case did not raise a point of law of special and general public importance, and that the plaintiffs had not provided information about their financial resources or evidence that they would discontinue if the order was refused. He also rejected their argument that the proceedings qualified as environmental litigation for costs purposes.
The judge’s refusal of the protective costs order is final. However, his proposed decision on the costs of that application remains provisional. He said the State defendants should receive costs, with only one set awarded for their two legal teams, and proposed that the court measure the amount without a stay so it could be enforced promptly. No amount or final costs order was set in the judgment.
The court invited submissions on the proposed costs arrangements and said it would hear them on 2 May 2023, alongside other outstanding matters. The judgment leaves the underlying injunction application unresolved.