Businessman David Hall has withdrawn his High Court challenge over an inquiry by the charities watchdog into the affairs of a homeless charity of which he was chairman.
Mr Hall will now have to pay the costs of bringing the challenge, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled on Thursday.
Mr Hall had been chairman of the Inner City Helping Homeless (ICHH), which collapsed and was wound up in October 2021 by the Charities Regulatory Authority (CHR).
This followed sexual assault allegations made against ICHH chief executive and founder Anthony Flynn, who was suspended by the charity before he was found dead at his home due to an apparent suicide in August 2021.
Mr Flynn had been under investigation by gardaí in relation to claims made by several men that he had sexually assaulted them.
Shortly afterwards, Mr Hall resigned as chair of the ICHH’s board due to threats to his personal safety.
An investigation into corporate governance at the ICHH was launched by the regulator after a liquidator was appointed to the charity.
It appointed Thomas Mulholland, the regulator’s director of compliance and enforcement, and Corne Mouton, a chartered accountant, to conduct the investigation.
However, in June last year, Mr Hall applied to the High Court to bring judicial review proceedings against the regulator claiming the investigation was flawed.
He claimed this was for reasons including that Mr Mulholland had adopted and expressed views about matters that are the subject of the investigation.
It is also claimed that, in correspondence, Mr Mulholland had been highly critical of the manner in which Mr Hall had carried out his duties, which had resulted in a strained personal history between the two.
He sought to have the investigation halted and restarted without the involvement of Mr Mulholland.
The regulator strongly denied that there was any pre-judgment on the part of Mr Mulholland or that he had any role in the affairs of the charity.
The High Court decided that Mr Hall’s application for leave to bring the proceedings and the proceedings themselves should be heard by way of a telescoped single hearing.
It was set down for hearing on Thursday when James Doherty, for the regulator and the two inspectors, said Mr Hall had written to his side more than a year after bringing proceedings saying the case was being withdrawn. Counsel applied for his legal costs as a result.
He said the regulator had written to Mr Hall after he first brought his case fully outlining why his concerns were fundamentally misconceived and inviting Mr Hall to withdraw the case to avoid costs. However, this did not happen until this month, he said.
The regulator was now seeking his costs in circumstances where Mr Hall had also offered no explanation or reason for abandoning his case.
Jack Tchrakian, for Mr Hall, said he was “in the court’s hands” as to costs.
Mr Justice Ferriter said there was only one answer to the costs application. This was in light of what was outlined by counsel for the regulator and in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, which says a party that discontinues proceedings after they have commenced must pay the other side’s reasonable costs.
He noted an opportunity had been offered at an early stage to Mr Hall to withdraw the case and that no reason had been advanced as to why it had been abandoned.
He ordered Mr Hall to pay the regulator’s costs up to last June 12th.