Ms K and Coombe Hospital facing legal bills of €1m each

The Coombe Women's Hospital is facing a substantial costs bill of more than €1m over its successful High Court action for declarations that it was entitled to administer a necessary blood transfusion to a female member of the Jehovah Witness faith against her wishes.

Last month, in what was a landmark decision, the High Court determined that the Coombe Women's Hospital's acted lawfully in getting a court order allowing it give a necessary blood transfusion to the 24-year-old woman from the Congo, known as Ms K, against her wishes.

The court also set out guidelines for how hospitals, the courts and the State might address similar situations in the future.

The hospital and the woman, known as Ms K, will have both pay their own costs, estimated to be over €1m each, after Miss Justice Mary Laffoy today refused both the hospitals' and the woman's application for the State to pay the costs of the 37 day action.

The Judge said that she could see "no basis" for awarding the costs of the action against the State.

Counsel for the hospital Gerard Hogan said the Coombe was not seeking its costs against Ms K, because she was a patient of the hospital and as such the Coombe felt it had a duty of care towards her, but was seeking costs against the State on the grounds that what was a "traumatic" case had raised issues of public importance.

Also applying for his costs against the State counsel for Ms K John Rogers SC said that this action was "a unique case" of "obvious public importance."

However David Barniville SC said the State "strenuously objected" to being saddled with the costs of the case.

In her judgment last month Ms Justice Laffoy granted a declaration that the hospital acted lawfully in sedating and transfusing Ms K following the making of the September 21 order.

The action arose after the hospital secured an emergency High Court order on September 21, 2006 permitting it to administer a blood transfusion to the woman who for legal reasons can only be referred to as Ms K.

The hospital got the order on an ex parte basis (one side represented) after saying it feared the woman's life would be in danger were she not transfused.

Ms K had earlier that day lost an estimated 80% of her blood while giving birth to her first child, a boy, but refused the transfusion because of her religious beliefs.

The hospital argued it was entitled to seek the order and the court was entitled to grant it.

Ms K rejected those claims, argued the order breached her rights, represented an assault on her person and also sought damages.

Because Ms K had initially told the hospital she was Roman Catholic and misrepresented other matters, the situation in which she was transfused against her wishes was, unfortunately, "of her own making'', the judge remarked.