A medicine student who claimed she was raped by a fellow student has been refused an award of legal costs incurred in an application dealing with reporting restrictions in her High Court action against University College Dublin (UCD).
The student has appealed the dismissal of her action claiming UCD failed to make adequate allowances to her following the alleged incident. The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the three-judge Court of Appeal on July 21st.
In February, the student’s story entered the wider public domain after a report in UCD’s University Observer was raised in the Dáil by Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger.
Coppinger’s statements and the report highlighted incidents where the woman’s “nude, bruised and unconscious” image, taken without her consent following an alleged violent rape, was shared with hundreds of college staff and students.
READ MORE
In light of increased publicity surrounding the case, UCD sought to vary an order made by the court anonymising the parties to the proceedings.
The university secured a variation on the order, which allowed for UCD to be identified and to comment on the case.
On Tuesday, Judge Marguerite Bolger refused to make an order awarding legal costs incurred by the student in responding to the university’s application for the variation.
The judge said that she did not consider the student was “entirely absolved” from responsibility for the circumstances that saw the university apply for the variation in the order.
The judge said she would make no order as to costs in respect of the university’s motion to vary the anonymity order.
Opposing the student’s application for costs, lawyers for the university submitted that she was in contact with Coppinger before her case being raised by the TD in the Dáil. The university also submitted that she was in contact with media outlets in relation to the case.
The student had submitted, through her counsel, that the university’s own actions had brought about the perceived necessity for the variation in the anonymisation order. She submitted that she was not responsible for the publication of the court’s judgment in the case or for the increased publicity around the case.
