Coombe facing €1m legal bill over transfusion case

THE COOMBE Women’s Hospital in Dublin is facing a costs bill of over €1 million for its successful High Court action for declarations…

THE COOMBE Women’s Hospital in Dublin is facing a costs bill of over €1 million for its successful High Court action for declarations that it was entitled to administer a necessary blood transfusion to a female member of the Jehovah’s Witness faith against her wishes.

In a landmark ruling last month, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy ruled the hospital had acted lawfully in obtaining a court order allowing it give the transfusion to the 24-year-old woman from the Congo, who may be identified only as Ms K. The court also set out guidelines as to how hospitals, the courts and the State might address similar situations in the future.

The case was before the judge again yesterday to decide issues of the multimillion costs of the 37-day hearing.

The judge rejected applications by both the hospital and Ms K to have their costs paid by the State. She ruled the hospital and Ms K must each pay their own costs, estimated at sums of more than six figures in both cases.

READ MORE

The judge said there was “no basis” for awarding costs to the sides against the State. The Attorney General was a defendant in the case because issues relating to the Constitution were raised but was “not a protagonist” in the proceedings, she said.

The judge said an application by the hospital for its costs relating to an earlier application by the Jehovah’s Witness congregation, the Watch Tower Bible and the Tract Society of Ireland should be decided by Mr Justice Frank Clarke, who had refused that application in December 2006.

Earlier, in seeking costs of the main action against the State, Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for the hospital, said it was not seeking costs against Ms K.

Counsel for Ms K, John Rogers SC, said the action was of “obvious public importance” and the State should bear the costs.

David Barniville SC, for the Attorney General, said his client “strenuously objected” to being faced with the costs of the case.