T.H. (A Ward Of Court), Re (Rev1)

From the Hospital�s perspective, the evidence suggests that, as of March 2019, its assessment was that the appropriate care of T.H. required either that he reside at home under a suitable care arrangement following discharge from the Hospital or that he would move to suitable residential nursing home care. The HSE�s assessment was that he needed to be in age appropriate accommodation and that his stay in a hospital setting on a continuing basis was inappropriate and not warranted.

It bears emphasis that this is a case in which the correctness of the President�s order taking T.H. into Wardship is not in contest. It would appear that his counsel did not resist the making of the order by the President of the High Court. No attempt was made to appeal the said order and the purported notice of appeal does not encompass any challenge to the order taking him into Wardship.

It was thus that the application of the legal practitioners� team for T.H. for costs came to be dealt with separately and subsequently to the Order taking T.H. into wardship. The costs application was ultimately heard by Hyland J. and judgment was delivered in October 2020. It would appear that this occurred, at least in part, because T.H.�s legal practitioners had given no prior indication to the HSE of their intention to seek an order that it should be liable to discharge T.H.�s legal fees and outlay, which is not an order conventionally sought in wardship proceedings.

At the adjourned costs hearing, counsel for T.H. sought to frame an argument that the costs of T.H. should be borne by the HSE. That proposition was characterised thus by Hyland J. in her judgment delivered on the 1st October, 2020, [2020] IEHC 487 ;

�77. Insofar as the solicitors may contend that the Ward or his estate are liable for any costs incurred by them on or after the 2 July 2019 in connection with any aspect of this appeal, my preliminary view is that such a claim is not maintainable for all the reasons stated above since, at the point of being taken into Wardship, the property of the Ward became subject to the control of the High Court. The Ward was never the client of the solicitors/legal practitioners within the meaning of s.2 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 and neither was his estate. (emphasis added)