Appeal concerning an individual’s access to mental health care did not give rise to matters of general public importance

Court of Appeal ruling on costs alone - appeal failed - Appellants made submissions on costs Appellants sought no order as to costs - the Appellants were unsuccessful in obtaining any of the reliefs which they had sought in their proceedings before the High Court but a declaration was granted in their favour – the declaration said that the Respondent, the HSE, was under a continuing duty to provide appropriate mental health treatment and services in accordance with law - costs of the High Court proceedings granted to the Appellants - the Appellants appealed the declaration made in their favour - they also appealed the refusal of the reliefs they had sought - the Judge in the Court of Appeal said that the case which the Appellants sought to make before it was “quite different” to the case they had made before the High Court - at variance to the case pleaded and argued before the High Court - the Court of Appeal could not consider the “new” case which was being argued before it as it had not been argued before the High Court – a party who is entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to an award of costs - Section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 - Appellants argue that an exception to the rule that costs follow the event should be made - appeal raised issues of general public importance and that a full medical assessment should take place – the Court of Appeal found that matters of general public importance did not arise in the appeal – Appellant’s mental health not a matter of general public importance - order made for the costs of the appeal and the costs application in favour of the Respondent.