The High Court ordered Catherine Martin and Diarmuid Doorley to pay the costs of the Legal Aid Board and the State parties after dismissing their challenge to access to legal aid case files.
In a judgment on costs delivered on 13 December 2007, Miss Justice Laffoy applied the usual rule that costs follow the event. She said the case did not raise issues of law of “special and general public importance” that justified departing from that rule.
The plaintiffs had sought declarations that the Board’s decision to permit access to case files was unlawful and unconstitutional, and, if necessary, that section 32(2) of the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 was invalid. In a judgment on the substantive issues delivered on 23 February 2007, the court refused both declarations and dismissed the claim.
When costs were considered on 23 March 2007, the plaintiffs argued that the case raised important issues about the administration of justice and the solicitor-client relationship. Their counsel also said they had no personal proprietary interest and asked for one day’s costs, or alternatively that the defendants receive no costs or only one set of costs. The Board and State parties sought costs, arguing that the plaintiffs had lost and there was no exceptional basis to depart from the usual rule.
The court had postponed its decision on costs pending the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dunne v Minister for the Environment & Ors, delivered on 6 December 2007. Applying that judgment, Justice Laffoy accepted that the case concerned a statutory provision in the context of legal professional privilege, which has a constitutional dimension. She nevertheless found that its legal issues did not meet the threshold for a costs departure.
The court also noted that the defendants’ arguments on standing and mootness had not succeeded, but found that raising them had not materially affected the length or cost of the proceedings. It held that the Board and the State parties were separate defendants, had separate legal representation, and were each entitled to costs. The order was for costs in favour of both against the plaintiffs.