Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal has determined that legal practitioners who pursued an appeal regarding the allocation of costs in a wardship case should not be held liable for those 'wasted' costs. The original High Court decision, which took an individual into wardship and later addressed the costs incurred during the process, was not contested. The appeal, filed by the legal practitioners after the individual's death, was found to be without proper authorisation or instruction from the deceased's estate. Despite this, the court concluded that the legal practitioners acted with a genuine sense of public interest and did not engage in misbehavior that would warrant personal liability for costs.
Wardship, Legal Practitioners, Costs Allocation, Court of Appeal, High Court, Vulnerable Individual, Test Case, Estate, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, Solicitor, Barrister, HSE (Health Service Executive), General Solicitor for Wards of Court, Public Interest, Informed Consent, Legal Representation, Advocacy Group, Gerontology, Medical Evidence, Locus Standi, Wasted Costs, Order 99 RSC (Rules of the Superior Courts), Succession Act 1965, Committee of the Ward, generallia specialibus non derogant (the general does not derogate from the specific).
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now