In the Matter of A.B [A Respondent] (Approved) [2024] IEHC 361 (14 June 2024)

In the Matter of A.B [A Respondent] (Approved) [2024] IEHC 361 (14 June 2024)

The court determined that the longstanding practice in wardship cases should be followed, and refused to make an order for costs against the petitioner/HSE. The petition was properly presented on reasonable grounds and for the benefit of the respondent, and the improvement in the respondent's condition was not attributable to any improper conduct by the HSE. Sections 168 and 169 of the 2015 Act and Order 99 RSC do not displace the practice in wardship cases, and the undertaking in the petition does not entitle the respondent to costs against the petitioner.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 361
Parties
Petitioner: Health Service Executive; Respondent: Respondent (name withheld)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Wardship Petition / Post Hearing Costs Determination
Outcome
no order as to costs against the petitioner/HSE
Legal Topics
Wardship, Costs in Civil Proceedings, Capacity Assessment, Practice in Wardship Cases
Mental Health Law Civil Procedure Wardship Costs in Civil Proceedings Capacity Assessment Practice in Wardship Cases

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Health Service Executive

Petitioner

Respondent (name withheld)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wardship Petition / Post Hearing Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the respondent entitled to costs against the HSE when the wardship petition is not proceeded with?
  2. 2 Should the longstanding practice in wardship cases regarding costs be followed in this instance?

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the longstanding practice in wardship cases should be followed, and refused to make an order for costs against the petitioner/HSE. The petition was properly presented on reasonable grounds and for the benefit of the respondent, and the improvement in the respondent's condition was not attributable to any improper conduct by the HSE. Sections 168 and 169 of the 2015 Act and Order 99 RSC do not displace the practice in wardship cases, and the undertaking in the petition does not entitle the respondent to costs against the petitioner.

Court Disposition

no order as to costs against the petitioner/HSE

Orders

  • No order as to costs against the petitioner/HSE.
  • Issue of costs out of the respondent's estate left open pending application by respondent's solicitors and counsel.