The Commissioner for the Bermuda Police Service will have to foot the legal bill for Mahesh Reddy after a court battle over the legality of his arrest.

While the Supreme Court had found that Dr Reddy’s arrest and the subsequent search of his home was unlawful, a lawyer for the Commissioner argued that Dr Reddy had lost the sole point of law for which leave for judicial review had been granted.

Dr Reddy, chief medical officer at Bermuda Healthcare Services, was arrested on May 9, 2016 in connection with an investigation into allegations that he ordered unnecessary scans on patients.

However, he said the arrest and search were an attempt to intimidate him into giving evidence against former premier Ewart Brown, who owns Bermuda Healthcare Services.

Last month, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled that the summary arrest of Dr Reddy was unlawful, writing in a judgment: “It is quite obvious based on the evidence before the court that the investigating officers did not evaluate the appropriateness of exercising the power of arrest in the way it was exercised as against other, less intrusive options,”

However, Mark Diel, representing the Commissioner, argued that the courts gave leave to hear the judicial review on the ground that the arrest was unlawful under the Criminal Jurisdiction and Procedure Act 2015. In a judgment on the costs hearing, the Chief Justice wrote that the reliance placed on the Act was “wholly misconceived”, however he added that the point consumed a “minimal amount of time” relative to what became the main issues of the case.

“In short, the applicant’s unsuccessful ‘scope of leave’ point does not provide a valid basis for concluding that a disproportionate amount of time was spent on an issue upon which the respondent succeeded,” Mr Justice Kawaley wrote.

“The crucial point is that Mr Diel was unable at the costs hearing to identify any issue on which the applicant did not succeed, which consumed so significant an amount of time as to displace the usual costs following the event rule.

“Having reserved judgment to further consider the matter, neither have I.”

The judge however declined to order any costs between Dr Reddy and the Attorney-General, who was listed as an interested party in the case.

While Dr Reddy had made an application for constitutional relief, that argument was abandoned with Lord Peter Goldsmith QC, representing Dr Reddy, stating on the first date of the hearing that it would not be sought. In his decision on costs, Mr Justice Kawaley wrote that Dr Reddy had not behaved “so unreasonably” to warrant costs.

“The applicant could have taken proactive steps in the days before the hearing to clarify the limited significance of the constitutional relief once the respondent’s final position on the construction of the section became clear,” he wrote.

“However the intervener too could have sought clarification before the hearing at least.

“On balance, I find that neither the applicant nor the intervener acted unreasonably in failing to clarify the extent of the intervener’s necessary involvement in all the circumstances.

“Going forward, however, if the Attorney-General is either joined or chooses to intervene in a constitutional application and wishes to obtain the extraordinary remedy of an adverse costs order, the applicant must be put on notice from the earliest point possible that he is exposed to such a costs risk.”