Mr Denis Riordan, who had costs awarded against him by the Supreme Court yesterday, is exploring all appeal options, including the possibility of appealing to the European Court of Justice. The decision on costs arises from his challenge to the appointment of Mr Hugh O'Flaherty as vice-president of the European Investment Bank.
However, Mr Riordan said that if, having exhausted all options, the Government asks him to pay its costs, he will attempt to do so.
Speaking on Mr Riordan's behalf, his spokesman, Mr Michael Nugent, said that he would not be seeking funds from the public.
The decision to award costs against Mr Riordan is seen as being likely to discourage others from challenging executive decisions in the courts. In general, the courts have tended to allow the costs of such challenges to the litigants on the grounds that they raise issues of public importance.
Fine Gael's deputy leader, Mrs Nora Owen, called on the State not to collect the costs awarded against Mr Riordan. "It is clear from the overwhelming public reaction to Denis Riordan's case that they supported his constitutional challenge", she said in a statement.
The case took a full day in the Supreme Court; a further two days was spent seeking injunctive relief. The Government was represented by two senior and one junior counsel, so its costs are likely to run to about £15,000. Mr Riordan represented himself and therefore has minimal costs.
He has had costs awarded against him before in cases he took against the Government, but according to Mr Nugent it has not yet sought to collect them. However, a spokesman for the Government told The Irish Times that the Attorney General's office was in the process of recovering costs in relation to the other cases. No decision had yet been made in relation to this case, he said.
The decision to award costs against Mr Riordan differs from a number of other cases where people took cases against the State and lost, but none the less had costs awarded in their favour because the cases raised issues of public importance.
These include a case in May of last year in which Coolenbridge School, Miss Nora O'Sheil (suing through her mother) and others lost a case against the Department of Education, and a case listed as Reynolds v Attorney General in 1973. In that case Mr Justice Kenny said that people who asserted their constitutional rights were to be encouraged, and this principle has tended to inform the courts' attitude to costs since.
Mr Anthony Coughlan, who recently won a case against RTE, said that the decision was an attempt to shut off other litigants. He pointed out that in Britain a system existed where anyone who was granted permission to take judicial review proceedings could apply to have their costs in advance. "This case raises the whole issue of equality of access to the courts", he added.
If Mr Riordan does appeal to another forum, he will argue that the Supreme Court was mistaken in its interpretation of the High Court decision.
Mr Nugent pointed out that in the course of correspondence with the European Investment Bank Mr Riordan and his supporters had established that people other than those nominated by the Government could put their names forward to the bank for appointment as vice-president. He understood that about six people had done so, including Mr Richard Douthwaite, author, economist and former Green Party candidate in Connacht/Ulster.