John Waters (left) and Gemma O’Doherty

This morning.

Via The Irish Times:

Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters are facing a substantial legal bill after the High Court ruled they must pay the costs of their failed attempt to challenge laws brought in due to Covid-19.

In a ruling on Thursday morning, Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the pair should pay the legal costs of both the State respondents and the notice parties, the Dáil, Seanad and the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr Waters and Ms O’ Doherty, who claim the laws are unconstitutional, are appealing the dismissal of their action to the Court of Appeal.

O’Doherty and Waters ordered to pay legal costs of case against State over Covid-19 laws (Irish Times)




35 thoughts on “Costly

  1. Johnny

    Paul Gallahert-$613,242

    Maurice Collins-$671,664

    Philip Baker-$608,804

    Barry Doherty-$581,467

    William Fry- $3,280,000


    Total Apple legal bill to date $8,429,000

    In my opinion Finn Gael rode roughshod over the Irish constitutional right to private property in the emergency Anglo legislation, violated the constitutional rights Irish citizens by illegally shouldering future generations with Promissory Notes.

    Im not a lawyer but with almost 9 million on Apple tax case,it seems like money well spent to keep some checks and balances on a political party that has no issues violating your rights.

    1. Joe Small

      There’s the ultimate whatabouterry right there, completely avoiding the issue at hand.

      When it comes to constitutional law, the phase “In my opinion…” carries zero weight unless you’re a Supreme Court judge.

    2. Cian

      Which emergency Anglo legislation are you talking about?

      If it is the Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Act 2009, then it was Fianna Fail that brought it in. Fine Gael and Labour voted against it.

          1. Johnny

            Sorry Cian I can’t really distinguish between tired old FF and FG,if you asked me few months ago if would be reviewing footage of the NYPD attacking peaceful protestors in Brooklyn las night I would have laughed.

            Its a Thursday in NY we still on ‘lockdown’ which is a joke,,army and military police at 8 pm are driving around NY,blasting announcements to go home or get arrested and peaceful protestors are getting attacked.

            Its sunny early and I get these two are polarizing but there is a bigger principle at stake here which I believe as illustrated in the Pringle case that the Irish govt under (FG/FF) has and will continue to push the edges or violate your constitutional rights


          2. Cian

            How exactly did the Pringle case show “that the Irish govt under (FG/FF) has and will continue to push the edges or violate your constitutional rights”?

            The Irish courts found against him, referred part of the case to the CJEU, who dismissed his case.

            He lost. But the State paid for the case because it was deemed important.

          3. Johnny

            An extraordinarily brave courageous and talented independent TD was portrayed by FF/FG and the Irish media as some sort ‘crank’ an outlier,a trouble maker.

            Thomas Pringle is a patriot who tried save future generations from carrying the burden,created by negligence,gross mismanagement and fraud by the Irish govt with Anglo Irish Bank.

            History will judge Thomas a lot better that you ungrateful b**ards,who silently scorned,smeared and mocked him.

    1. Johnny

      -yes as they should it sends a chilling message that only rich people can hold the govt to account-good luck with that !

      -at times irish people my be misled to confuse personalities with principles by the media and govt.

      1. Cian

        There is a difference between “holding the government to account” and “wasting State resources”.

        When it is the former the courts make the State pay costs; when it is the latter – then the applicant pays.

          1. Cian

            The apple legal fees are a waste of money.
            GO’D and Water’s constitutional challenge is a waste of money.

          2. Cian

            The Pringle case supports my point – the State paid for all the legal costs because the case raised “serious and substantial” issues of “exceptional public importance” concerning Irish and European law.

      2. ReproBertie

        Except they didn’t hold the government to account. They presented no facts and no expert testimony to back up their position that the Covid lockdown was equivalent to the regime in Nazi Germany.

        If they had actually represented the views of the Irish people then I’m sure those Irish people would have been happy to cover their costs.

      3. Cian

        If you make actual legal argument and lose, you will often not have to pay the states costs

        If you go in and wibble, you will.

        They did the latter.

        1. millie von strumpet


          They were grandstanding, plain and simple. If, for example, in six months time, the virus has been removed as an immediate threat from Ireland, and these laws/restrictions are still in place for now transparent reason, or the government move to extend those restrictions, then there may well be a valid reason for such a case. But in the middle of a pandemic, at a time when we were still only coming to grips with dealing with the virus and the scale of infection/transmission was unknown, they were wasting time on state resources, creating confusion during a time of uncertainty and fear.

          1. SOQ

            OK well the scale of infection/transmission is still unknown but anyways.

            Thing is, Gemma and John never believed there was a pandemic and that the lock down was for other purposes. And if the number getting sick keeps going down and an accurate anti body test becomes available, an increasing number of people are going to be asking why the OTT reaction in the first place.

            As I said at the time- its a win win for them no matter which way it went.

      4. DaithiG

        If “sending a chilling message” to stop people bringing absolutely ridiculously frivolous litigation to the courts, then I’m all for it.

        Did you read the transcript? It was a complete joke. These two doodle-pants makes complete fools of themselves again and again. Honestly, if it wasn’t for their victims of racism it would be actually funny.

  2. Cú Chulainn

    I’d like to see the name on the cheque that pays that bill. Mind you, what’s the likelihood they will say they can’t pay and are prepared to go to prison in lieu. (And what’s the betting some nice person steps in to pay at the last minute). Refer to point one above..!!

    1. Daisy Chainsaw

      It’ll probably be spelled “Check” and have to be converted from dollars.

    1. Gabby

      Some psychologists say Freud brought a lot of Schaden to the topic, so maybe it’s freudenschade.

  3. Ringsend Incinerator

    2 days down the Four Courts in the HC:


    Silk X 2(?) = 50K
    Junior X1 = 25K
    Solicitor X 1 = 25K

    VAT 23%

    100 K minimum time

    1. V'ness

      No way

      If they’ve any cop on at all, they’ll get it taxed down to about 15 grand

      Not a bad outlay for the coverage they got
      In fairness

      1. Ringsend Incinerator

        Doubt it – taxing master won’t be giving them or anyone else a 75% discount. Nor will their own legal advisors… they’ll be down on cigarette money big time.

        John might have to write another book.

        1. V'ness

          mebbe not

          but there’s no way they’re going to get stuck with a 100k

          I’ll be surprised if its even 20k

          That’s assuming they engage someone to negotiate
          if they do it themselves then
          all bets are off

Comments are closed.