The High Court has remitted David Goulding’s claim over his detention conditions in Mountjoy Prison to the District Court, leaving the question of costs incurred in the High Court for the District Court judge to decide at the end of the case.
In a judgment delivered on 18 May 2021, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland refused Mr Goulding’s request for an immediate order awarding him High Court costs. She reserved the costs of the High Court proceedings on both sides to the District Court judge. If that judge later awards costs incurred in the High Court, they are to be measured on the High Court scale.
The case concerns Mr Goulding’s detention for about four months between 2012 and 2013. He was held on Mountjoy’s D1 wing for protection prisoners, sharing a single-person cell with at least one other prisoner for 23 hours a day without in-cell sanitation. His 2015 claim sought damages and declarations that the conditions breached his rights, including his right to dignity and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment.
The defendants did not oppose remittal, but disputed Mr Goulding’s request for costs at this stage. They argued that the damages at issue were within the District Court’s jurisdiction and that an offer made under a State compensation scheme did not admit liability. The offer, made in June 2020, was €2,674 in damages and €1,000 towards measured legal costs; Mr Goulding rejected it.
The judge said liability and the amount of any damages remained unresolved. The offer was not an admission of liability or an event establishing success for costs purposes. A hearing in the District Court would still address liability and damages, although the defendants might no longer contest some matters in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Simpson.
That earlier case concerned similar prison conditions. The Supreme Court awarded Mr Simpson €7,500 and varied a declaration concerning breaches of constitutional rights. Justice Hyland concluded that it was reasonable for Mr Goulding to have started his proceedings in the High Court, given the declaratory relief sought and uncertainty over the lower courts’ jurisdiction to determine the constitutional issues. That conclusion preserves the High Court scale for any High Court costs later awarded; it does not guarantee an award.
The judge also proposed that the defendants receive the costs of the remittal motion, with that order stayed until the District Court case is finally resolved. Either party could file written submissions within a week if they disagreed with that proposal.