Consultants who sued over breach of contract seek orders for legal costs

High Court reporters

Lawyers acting for 100 consultant doctors are seeking orders for legal costs incurred in actions brought by the medics over alleged breaches of contract claims against the HSE and the State.

In 2018, the High Court heard several test cases brought over the alleged failure by the State to pay remuneration due to consultants in line with a 2008 contract. The cases were subsequently settled.

As part of the settlement, the consultants received corrected remuneration as well as retrospective payment of remuneration.

The settlement agreement provided a mechanism for hundreds of other consultants who brought litigation over the alleged breach of contract to also settle their cases on the same terms.

On Tuesday, barrister John Rogers, appearing with Cathy Maguire for 100 such consultants, told Judge Siobhán Stack that the matter of legal costs in the litigation has not been agreed.

Counsel said he was seeking an order for his clients’ legal costs as against the State respondents in the cases.

He said the mechanism in the settlement agreement whereby non-test case consultants could settle their litigation provided for the making of an order for legal costs against the relevant State defendants.

Costs in cases taken by consultants are currently being dealt with by the legal costs adjudicator in a process that began in November 2024, Rogers told the judge. The State Claims Agency is also engaged in a process of reviewing the cases, counsel said.

Noting that eight years have passed since the settlement agreement was reached, Rogers said there was an anxiety on his side to resolve the costs matter.

Rogers said he was in a position to call oral evidence from a senior solicitor involved in the cases to confirm that his clients’ cases had settled under the terms of the settlement agreement.

Niall O’Driscoll, barrister for the State defendants, said his side didn’t want to “stand in the way of progress”, but were seeking an adjournment to allow time to confirm with HSE that the consultants seeking the costs orders had settled their cases in accordance with the settlement agreement.

This process specifically involved confirming the consultants in question had signed a letter of consent agreeing to settle their respective actions, the court heard.

Earlier, Rogers submitted that it was “extraordinary” that the HSE had not told the State parties of settlements in the cases.

The HSE was not represented at Tuesday’s hearing, with the court told that it was not on notice of Rogers’ application.

The judge said it was reasonable to grant an adjournment, with a view to “definitively” dealing with the matter on the next date.

Protesting the adjournment, Rogers submitted that his clients’ cases had been settled for years, and that those settlements should automatically have triggered the making of costs orders, in accordance with the settlement agreement.

“This is like getting through the Strait of Hormuz ... these cases shouldn’t be dealt with like this,” he said.

He submitted that he had a witness available to confirm the settlement of the cases in question.

The judge said she would adjourn the matter for one month to allow the State defendants to confirm the settlements.