Eamon Butterly, the previous manager of the Stardust nightclub, has been instructed to settle the litigation expenses of the kin of the 47 victims from the infamous 1981 club fire. His futile effort to hinder an inquest jury from delivering an unlawful killing verdict in the High Court trial led to this mandate.
Mr. Butterly, prior to the last Easter weekend, had sought an immediate appeal in front of Mr. Justice Tony O’Connor. His objective was to dispute a judgement given by Dublin city coroner, Myra Cullinane, permitting the jury to conclude an unlawful killing verdict.
Before the onset of the inquest in November 2022, Butterly had made an unsuccessful similar plea in the High Court. The court had passed the ruling permitting the inquest to proceed and reach an unlawful killing finding, provided the conditions were “appropriate” and no individual was identifiable or identified.
Mr Justice O’Connor rejected Mr Butterly’s plea, which included both a request to initiate the challenge and to pause the inquest pending the challenge result. However, this decree was not made public until the inquest was concluded.
The demand was lodged moments before coroner Cullinane began her closing points to the inquest jury. Subsequently, the relatives’ attorneys, who were notified during the High Court hearing, insisted Mr. Butterly pay their fees related to the appeal.
Mr Butterly vehemently resisted the request, citing that his appeal was submitted ex parte, a common action in judicial review applications. Nevertheless, the families’ lawyers were informed when the coroner paused the inquest for the High Court appeal, leading to their participation in the High Court hearing.
Mr Butterly contended that because the state was already covering the attorney expenses for the inquest involving the families, he should not be responsible for their High Court costs. Mr Justice O’Connor countered this argument by remarking, notwithstanding that the families were not informed about the High Court appeal per court instructions, the presence of their lawyers and the coroner during the Easter session sparked no protests.
The implication by Mr Butterly, that court instructions would’ve granted him time to brace for the families’ opposition, was dismissed under analysis by the judge. He underlined that the judge’s allowance for any potential long delays from granting this permission did not make the final call.
Mr Justice O’Connor, additionally, commented that Mr Butterly always had the option to challenge the cases presented by the families. He noted, “The applicant and the court willingly accepted the cases brought forth by the families’ barrister.”
Mr Justice O’Connor asserted the court’s right to use its judgement according to the stipulations within the superior courts. On the topic of the state potentially covering the families’ legal fees as it had done for the inquest, Mr Justice O’Connor clarified it wasn’t necessarily guaranteed that they would also be reimbursed for High Court costs.
The judge further explained that it’s not for the court to set the sum for costs but to determine if they should be awarded, a decision ultimately handled by the High Court costs adjudicator.
Despite Mr Butterly’s disputes, Mr Justice O’Connor established that there was value in the families employing solicitors and counsel to advocate for their cause during the leave application hearing. He cited “Fairness and justice” as the core reason for requiring Mr Butterly to pay for the expenses the families incurred for one senior counsel, one junior counsel and their solicitor. However, these would only be for their appearance.