Case Explained: Concern over legal costs brings Gerry Adams’s eight-day London high court odyssey to end – The Irish Times – Legal Perspective

There was a moment on Thursday evening in court 16 at the royal courts of justice on the Strand in London when it started to seem as if the civil action taken against Gerry Adams by three victims of IRA bombings was in trouble.

On a number of occasions during eight days in the high court, Judge Jonathan Swift queried if he should hear from both legal teams as to whether the case itself was an abuse of process.

In English and Welsh civil law, a judge is able to stop, stay or strike out a case if they decide the legal process – in this case a civil claim for personal injuries damages – is being used unjustly or improperly.

He had mentioned the issue a few times, and it clearly troubled him, though observers could have been forgiven for thinking the message had not been fully absorbed by lawyers for the plaintiffs.

The case, seeking vindicatory damages of £1, was taken in May 2022 by Barry Laycock, injured in the Manchester Arndale bomb in 1996; Jonathan Ganesh, injured in Canary Wharf that year; and John Clark, injured in the Old Bailey bombing in 1973.

By Thursday afternoon, however, the full import of the judge’s thinking had struck home with barrister Anne Studd, who insisted that such an order would be deeply unfair to the three men.

Responding to the judge’s call for arguments, Studd said it would “be procedurally unfair” if the men’s case – which had been running for more than a week at that stage – was to fall.

She acknowledged that the three “may well have said” before the case that they were taking the action on their behalf and on behalf of other Troubles victims, but none of that raised a question about their right to pursue it.

[ Gerry Adams welcomes decision by three victims of IRA bombings to drop civil action against himOpens in new window ]

Questions about their motivations could have been put to the two who gave evidence, Ganesh and Laycock – Clark was too unwell – but the defendant’s legal team had not done so, she said.

In reality, they had been asked many such questions in the witness box, though the judge told Studd that they could be brought back for further evidence if any issue of fairness needed to be repaired.

In her final words in the case shortly after noon on Friday, Studd argued the claimants were withdrawing because they could not afford to take the risk of becoming liable for Adams’s costs.

Two years ago, they were awarded a costs protection order that ensured they were able to fight the case with certainty that they would not be made liable for Adams’s costs, even if they eventually lost.

But once the judge raised the issue of abuse of process, it was clear that the costs order would be reviewed if Swift decided to throw it out on those grounds, she said. That was the sole reason why they were withdrawing.

The judge was in no mood to hear such arguments, however, telling Studd that such matters were better ventilated outside of the royal courts of justice, rather than inside his court.

Edward Craven, barrister for Adams, acknowledged it was the judge rather than his side who had raised the abuse of process issue, but he added that they had reflected deeply on the question.

Having done so, Craven said they were satisfied that a proper application of the principles governing abuse of process showed “it does cross the threshold” that would justify striking out the case.

Cases are an abuse if they are taken to cause a defendant collateral damage, or “expense, harassment or prejudice beyond the scope of what is ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation”, he said.

Contacts were made between the legal teams overnight, though the full detail of these was not shared by either the victors or the defeated legal team, but they agreed that the case would be withdrawn, with no order for costs.

The claimants had raised £110,000 from a crowdfunding campaign that, to quote Ganesh, received many small donations of “three quid or a fiver”. The majority had come from a small number of larger donations.

Throughout the case, the Adams side was confident, if frequently irritated by the nature of the evidence put before the court from a former IRA member, Shane Paul O’Doherty, and ex-soldiers and police.

In the eyes of Adams, his decision to turn up every day, bar Friday morning, was a signal of his willingness to show respect for those injured by the IRA during the years of the Troubles.

However, the decision to turn up on the first day wearing a stab vest, or a bulletproof vest – it has never become clear which – was a decision that catapulted the story on to the top of the headlines in Belfast, if not anywhere else.

Equally, there were signs of an alternative commentary being prepared in the event of the case going against him, as illustrated by Adams’s decision to talk about the long history of the Irish people not getting justice in the English courts.

The final outcome leaves Adams with a win and a financial bill that runs into six figures, though he may see it as a small price to pay after a case that, had it gone the other way, could have left him facing civil claims for compensation for the rest of his days.