C v C.J. (Unapproved)

The Court delivered its judgments herein on 2 February 2022 (Pilkington J., concurring judgment of Murray J., and Haughton J. concurring) whereby it allowed the appeal from the Order of Barrett J. dated 31 May 2018, perfected on 7 June 2018 and substituted therefore an order granting leave to the appellant pursuant to s.73 of the Mental Health Act, 2001 (as amended) to issue the intended proceedings in the form of the draft Civil Bill submitted to the Court.

This is the judgment of the court in relation to the costs incurred in the High Court and in respect of the appeal.� In the judgment of Pilkington J. it was proposed, subject to any submissions that the parties might wish to make, that the costs of the application in the High Court, and the appeal, be reserved to the judge determining the intended proceedings.

Both parties written submissions on the costs have been considered, and the court does not consider that any oral submissions are required.

The appellant, who did not have legal representation, is of course not entitled to seek any legal/professional costs, and is limited to seeking the expenses which he has properly incurred in both courts .� In Dawson v Irish Brokers Association [2002] 2 ILRM 210 it was held that lay litigants are not entitled to recover costs on the same basis as a solicitor for preparatory work undertaken by them prior to trial.�

As he was successful in his appeal, the appellant seeks his expenses in both courts.�