Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters outside the High Court on May 6

This morning/afternoon.

Via The Irish Examiner:

High Court today was told of their intention to appeal Mr Justice Charles Meenan’s decision as the court heard arguments as to who should pay the legal costs of their action against the State and the Minister for Health.

The Dáil, the Seanad and the Ceann Comhairle were notice parties to the action.

When making submissions to the court on the issues of costs, both Ms O’Doherty and Mr Waters said they would be appealing the court’s refusal to grant them leave to mount a legal challenge to the Court of Appeal.

They argued that the court should not order them to pay the legal costs of the State or the notice parties on grounds including that their action was brought in the public interest.

John Waters and Gemma O’Doherty to appeal High Court refusal to allow challenge to Covid-19 laws

Previously: Dollyer


16 thoughts on “Appealing

  1. Daisy Chainsaw

    This was in no way brought in the public interest. This was brought in 5Gem’s and WaaWaa’s interest only.

  2. Westbrit

    A desperate attempt to stall the obvious award of costs against them. “Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and a bogus historical parallel are not a substitute for facts,” Chancers and spoofers the 2 of them.

    1. V'ness

      On the face of it there “Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and a bogus historical parallel are not a substitute for facts
      you would have to expect costs to go against them

      But my feeling is the State, and the Court’s Service will opt for the easy life, and not pursue
      Like just leave it with each side responsible for their own costs

      1. SOQ

        I think so- especially as the rules are already being relaxed. Otherwise you may as well just nail the two of them to crosses outside the four courts and watch it zoom all around the world.

  3. goldenbrown

    it sees to me that this pair have found an exploit to achieve 1)free personal advertising 2)feed their big brain ego’s 3)excite and entertain their fanbase

    next up: Gemma and John go to the High Court on a new mission to argue about [insert whatever conceptual nonsense comes into your head] – reheat as required

  4. Richie

    I’m curious as to how this goes for them – assuming they lose and the costs are in fact awarded against them, will they ever have to pay? What if they don’t have the means? Would it be a substantial amount?

    Surely they cant carry on with such delusional behaviour and have no consequences?

  5. Porter

    This is completely misguided. The judge left open the possibility for a plenary hearing in his judgment and the barristers for the state acknowledged that there could be a plenary hearing instead of a judicial review hearing (how constitutional challenges are usually taken).

    Based on the reports today, they didn’t ask for that. So instead of the option of having a full hearing, they are instead seeking to appeal the decision not to use the judicial review procedure, thus taking the longer road available.

    I get the sense this is just about going ‘straight to the top’ and not about the actual result.

  6. A Person

    We should all be asking who are funding them and why? Come on all you supposed journos / know it alls on this site – who is funding them?

  7. sarkyone

    now that we have emergency pandemic legislation, maybe we should bring in emergency pain in the botty laws…

  8. Scundered

    This is one of those cases where you question if freedom of speech is so paramount, it’s hard to defend their ridiculous views, putting so many people at risk. However I guess they must be heard so society can show them up for the nutjobs they are.

Comments are closed.