DUP ministers could be faced with legal bill over north-south boycott

Counsel for a Belfast businessman also confirmed orders compelling attendance at the cross-border conferences will be sought against each of the five party representatives.

Ronan Lavery QC said: “We are interested in the individuals and not simply the office.”

Sean Napier took legal action after the DUP withdrew from North South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings as part of opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Judicial review proceedings were issued against First Minister Paul Givan, Economy Minister Gordon Lyons, Education Minister Michelle McIlveen, Agriculture Minister Edwin Poots, and Junior Minister Gary Middleton.

Last week Mr Justice Scoffield ruled that the party’s withdrawal is an unlawful breach of the pledge of office.

Within days of the verdict Mr Poots failed to turn up for a planned virtual meeting with Irish counterparts on environment issues.

Under Stormont rules, both a unionist and a nationalist minister must participate.

The boycott followed DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson’s announcement that his party will disengage from NSMC events.

As the case returned to court today, Mr Napier’s lawyers pressed for more information from The Executive Office on the process around scheduling meetings.

Mr Lavery said documents were being sought as part of attempts to ensure no gaps in transparency or legal obligations.

He claimed the respondents have taken a “minimalist” approach to the challenge, and described the ongoing ministerial non-attendance as “embarrassing”.

Although no judicial direction has been issued against the DUP representatives, the barrister argued that they each have individual responsibilities.

“We (will) seek orders against them personally to carry out certain functions,” he submitted.

Concerns were also raised about the potential drain on the public purse from the ongoing litigation. “One issue is whether or not the Ministers should be personally liable for costs if they maintain a course which is unlawful,” Mr Lavery said. “Why should the taxpayer have to pay for that?

“It would arise from a personal responsibility rather than a responsibility arising simply from the Office itself.”

During the hearing it was revealed that Mr Givan and Mr Middleton are now effectively without legal representation.

Counsel cannot be instructed on their behalf without obtaining agreement from both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

Tony McGleenan QC confirmed he was only able to appear for the Ministers for Agriculture, Education and Economy.

“There is even an issue about whether it is appropriate to be pursuing personally (the First Minister or Deputy First Minister) in circumstances where they can only ever act with consent of another party,” he said.

As Mr Justice Scoffield sought answers about the process around NSMC meetings, he raised the possibility of ordering the permanent secretary within the Executive Office to provide documents on how they are scheduled and ministers nominated.

He also suggested that Attorney General Brenda King may be invited to become involved in the case due to her role as “guardian of the rule of law in this jurisdiction”.

“The Attorney, given her entitlement to attend Executive meetings, might have more understanding of how these things work practically then others,” the judge said.

Adjourning proceedings until November 5, the judge raised the prospect of further discussions and developments on the issues set out in Sir Jeffrey’s speech.

He added: “It’s not impossible that there might be some movement for a variety of reasons, but for the moment we should probably work on the basis that the respondent’s position is unlikely to change.”

Outside court Mr Napier’s solicitor, Paul Farrell of McIvor Farrell, said: “The focus now is on the mechanics of government and the joint basis of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister’s decision making process.

“We expect to receive clarification on these matters by the next court review date.”