Committee of ward entitled to 60% of costs in proceedings concerning the long-term care of the ward

Wards of Court – costs of legal proceedings - ward transferred to a sophisticated home facility constructed specifically for her care in an extension to her parents’ home - transfer of the Ward to the home facility occurred in March 2015 and thereafter a private care team was engaged to look after the Ward - funded by the proceeds of a settlement paid to the Ward by way of compromise of a claim brought on her behalf relating to the brain injury sustained by her - the proceeds of the settlement would not be sufficient to continue to care for the Ward - the issue of the long-term care arrangements for the Ward was listed before the court - Committee and the HSE set out proposals for the ongoing care of the Ward - appropriate Do Not Resuscitate Direction - three issues in dispute - whether the court should accept on behalf of the Ward - whether the Committee was entitled to a court order directing the HSE to continue to fund the existing home care package - medical reports - appropriate minimum level of care required for the Ward – hearing before the High Court - revised proposals for respite care – in the absence of determining the legal issue court could not direct the HSE to go any further than what was proposed - arguments of the parties in relation to costs – HSE contended that although it had succeeded in the proceedings, no order for costs should be made - Committee argued that the circumstances underlying these proceedings are exceptional – Committee maintained that they were successful – whether the ordinary rule applies – meaning of “proceeding” – case surmounts the relatively low hurdle laid down in Allen v. Redland Tile and constitutes a “proceeding” for the purposes of O.99 - costs in this matter clearly do not relate to an issue tried by a jury - costs arise in relation to an “action” – identification of the event - change of position on the part of the HSE reduced the scope of the disagreement - homecare package is substantially similar to that proposed by the HSE - ward will continue to be maintained in her home - significant outcome for the Committee and the ward in terms of her future care which is quite different to the Community Nursing Unit placement originally envisaged by the HSE - Committee has succeeded - partial success - not the homecare package for which the Committee argued - HSE succeeded in resisting the imposition of a regime which would require it to fund the presence of two homecare assistants on a 24 hour basis 365 days of the year - neither side is wholly successful – not feasible in this case to attempt to carry out a scientific analysis of the extent of the hearing that was occupied with evidence on issues on which the Committee failed - impact of the offer made by the HSE – other considerations - Committee should be entitled to 60% of its costs of these proceedings save that no costs whatever should be allowed for one day of the four day hearing