A High Court judge has ruled that the taxpayer will not have to pay the legal costs of parties seeking unprecedented court orders including the mass exhumation of all people under 80-years who died suddenly after getting the Covid-19 vaccination, if they lose.
As well as seeking the exhumations, so that the bodies can undergo autopsy the three persons taking the case also want the court to make orders preventing children aged between 5 and 11 years from receiving the Covid-19 vaccination.
The proceedings are against the Taoiseach, the HSE and the Minister for Health, who all oppose the action which they say is "alarmist and scandalous".
Ruling on a preliminary issue in the action Mr Justice Michael Twomey said that the court was not prepared to make a protective costs order in favour of Sharon Browne of Garryowen, Co Limerick, David Egan from Galway City and Emmanual Lavery of Rear Cross, Co Tipperary who have brought the action.
Protective costs order
He said they had "by a long way" failed to comply with the various conditions that need to be satisfied to allow a court to make a protective costs order.
The granting of such an order would have meant that they would not have had to pay the legal costs of taking the proceedings even if they are unsuccessful in their action.
The judge said that while the outcome of the case was a matter for the judge hearing the full action, the court was not convinced that the claim by the three has "any, let alone a real, prospect of success."
The judge said that he was not satisfied within the first hour of the hearing of the pre-trial application to grant the protective costs.
It would not be fair to grant such an order, nor had the case raised any point of law of any special and general public importance.
The judge said the three were in effect seeking an order from the court that would "subsidise them in suing the State," and allow them to avoid be subjected to the general legal principle that "the loser pays" the legal costs incurred.
'Internet speculation'
The judge said that the three "do not have the right to make such extraordinary broad and scandalous claims based on internet speculation", and "do not have a right to pursue such litigation at the cost of the taxpayer. "
If they believe that their "extraordinary claims" will be successful, then they will need to "back their belief with their own money and not at the expense of the taxpayer."
In addition to finding that the case has no prospect of success, the judge said that he deemed the action, which includes baseless claims of mass killings and comparisons to Nazi Germany, an abuse of process.
The judge said the three claim the vaccine is "a bio-weapon" and compared the administration of the vaccine to the actions of the Nazis in second World War.
The applicants also sought orders seeking the mass disinterment of the bodies of all vaccinated persons under 80 years of age who died suddenly in the last two and a half years so that they could undergo a specific type of autopsy.
They further seek a full public commission of Inquiry into the use of early treatments for Covid-19, the judge noted.
As well as making claims about "mass killings" the judge said the three had made several other "breathtaking claims" in thousands of pages of documentation.
These included the claim that the Covid-19 vaccine inserts nanochips into recipients, and that the use of the bioweapon is part of a plan by US tech Billionaire Bill Gates to "depopulate the world".
"The alleged evidence for all the plaintiff's claims is a combination of hearsay, speculation, commentary, questions, internet sites, blogs YouTube videos, etc" the judge said.
While it is important that every citizen has access to the courts, the judge said that a key issue in the proceedings was who is going to pay for the very considerable legal costs incurred.
While they were, subject to the defamation laws, are "perfectly free to express on the internet and elsewhere their views on conspiracies regarding the Covid-19 vaccine", the judge said that "it is a separate matter if they should be facilitated in making these claims in court."
The plaintiffs he said "appear to genuinely believe that they are acting in the public interest and appear to be completely convinced of the claims they make about mass killings and a need for national disinterment of bodies.
However, not being motivated by personal gain was not enough to be granted a protective costs order, or to have taxpayers' monies diverted for their own purposes rather than other causes.
The judge said he was taking the provisional view that the costs of the preliminary hearing, which ran for one day before the High Court should be measured and paid by the three.
He was making this provisional finding because the "unmeritorious" claims in this case had to be defended at the taxpayers' expense.
The costs order, he said should be made as soon, as possible in order to act as a deterrent and to discourage in the strongest possible way further abuse of process.
The judge who invited submissions from the parties in relation to the costs of the hearing of the preliminary issue, adjourned the matter to a date next month.
