A Supreme Court decision yesterday has left college lecturer Mr Denis Riordan facing a legal bill estimated at £15,000. This arises following his unsuccessful challenge to the nomination of former judge Mr Hugh O'Flaherty to the position of vice-president of the European Investment Bank.
Mr Riordan lost his challenge to Mr O'Flaherty's nomination for the £147,000-a-year post in the High Court. The Supreme rejected his appeal against the High Court decision on July 21st. The question of costs was left over until yesterday.
After hearing submissions from the State and Mr Riordan, the Supreme Court decided the Limerick-based communications lecturer should pay the State's costs of the Supreme Court appeal only.
The High Court had made no order on costs, meaning each side meets its legal bill for the proceedings there. The Supreme Court said it would not change that decision.
Asked afterwards if he would be able to pay the bill, Mr Riordan said that, as with any bill, "you just have to pay it as you can".
He did not know how much the bill would be but added: "I'll get a loan if I get a bill through the letter box and I'll do my best to pay."
Mr Riordan said he had received some £2,500 in donations and contributions from the public.
Asked whether he would now seek further contributions, he said: "I would never go out and ask. I would like to thank those who have done so already."
Mr Riordan had conducted his case without a legal team. He said his own costs were only around £1,500.
Dismissing Mr Riordan's appeal last month, the Supreme Court said the Minister for Finance's nomination of Mr O'Flaherty for the EIB position had no legal effect and was no more than an expression of the wish of one of its shareholders that a particular candidate should be appointed. It found Mr Riordan had failed to demonstrate that the putting forward of Mr O'Flaherty's name for the vacancy and the announcement to that effect by the Minister was unconstitutional.
Yesterday, Mr James O'Reilly SC, for the State parties, applied for his costs.
Mr Riordan said his action had led to the establishment and clarification of the correct legal position in a matter of considerable national interest which had engendered much public disquiet and had "European Community-wide ramifications".
He said this had rendered it reasonable for a citizen to seek the intervention of the High Court, as had been recognised by the President of the High Court in his decision on costs.
He asked the Supreme Court for an order granting him his expenditure and outlay in making the appeal, covering court stamp fees, subsistence, travel, photocopying and other incidental outlays, and added that he was not asking for "any legal profit costs".
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said Mr Riordan had established a point of significance which had not been conceded on behalf of the respondents until the proceedings were in being - that the appointment of Mr O'Flaherty was solely a matter for the EIB.
Once that attitude became clear, Mr Riordan was in one sense from then on "at risk" in relation to costs in pursuing the matter. He had largely achieved what was his objective. Notwithstanding that, the High Court had made no order on costs.
In the circumstances, the Supreme Court was not disposed to interfere with the order on costs in the High Court but the respondents were entitled to costs for the Supreme Court proceedings.