Hospital chiefs will seek legal costs from a quadriplegic who was paralysed after an accident at Bermuda’s only mental hospital.

Thomas Hofer, 52, recently lost an 18-year legal battle to sue the Bermuda Hospitals Board for massive damages for injuries he sustained while a patient at St Brendan’s in 1994.

His lawyer, Larry Mussenden, told The Royal Gazette that BHB had made clear it would pursue costs against Mr Hofer, whose personal injury suit was filed in 1997 but never came to trial.

The board would not comment on that yesterday but this newspaper understands it intends to draw up a bill of costs to finally bring closure to the case.

The Chief Justice, in striking out the action in August, made no order in relation to costs.

Mr Hofer has been a ward of the German state since he returned to his home country in 1994 and is represented by a government lawyer there, who has been instructing Mr Mussenden since early 2010.

The former chef, who was 30 when the accident happened, is unlikely to be able to pay the other side’s costs, as he has not worked since the accident and has sought legal aid throughout the long-running proceedings.

But the question of who will end up paying for the lengthy litigation has yet to be answered.

BHB’s claim for costs may be aimed at the German government or, potentially, at Bermuda’s own legal aid office, which partially funded Mr Hofer’s civil action, until it withdrew financing this year.

Both BHB and the legal aid office are publicly funded bodies.

The hospitals board has been represented by Allan Doughty, senior litigation counsel at BeesMont Law, and his bill is likely to be substantial. In September 2004, Mr Doughty asked Mr Hofer’s lawyer at the time, Michael Scott, to propose a settlement figure. Another letter repeating the request was sent in October 2006 but did not receive a reply, according to a 2008 judgment.

The judgment from Puisne Judge Geoffrey Bell revealed that Mr Scott represented Mr Hofer at a time when his own political activity was increasing, as he served in the Cabinet from 2003.

He was made the Minister of Health in June 2007 but resumed his law practice when he lost the portfolio at the end of that year.

Mr Justice Bell wrote: “It appears that the last five years of delay were occasioned only by reason of Mr Scott’s political involvement and, with all respect, I have to say that such a reason for a substantial delay is ... regrettably, inexcusable.”

In March 2010, Court of Appeal judge Sir Murray Stuart-Smith blamed the “entire delay in this case” — save for an 18-month period between February 1998 and July 1999 — on Mr Scott.

Mr Scott said last night he would be happy to discuss the case in more detail once he had time to review the paperwork.

Since January 2010, Mr Hofer has been represented by Mr Mussenden. Chief Justice Ian Kawaley, in his ruling of August 15 this year, said a timetable fixed by the court to bring the case to trial in 2010 was “simply ignored and no attempt was made to come back before the court to seek the court’s indulgence with fixing a new timetable”.

Mr Justice Kawaley added that his “objective analysis” of whether to allow the case to proceed did “not involve any criticism of the plaintiff’s present or past attorneys”.

Mr Mussenden said: “The judgment also says repeated attempts were made by us to get legal aid to change its mind and give a full certificate. We wrote several opinions to legal aid on the merits of the case, also sought out UK experts on three mental illness care disciplines and worked on case preparation.

“We couldn’t do much without a full legal aid certificate, for example, we couldn’t retain experts.”

The lawsuit, which if successful was expected to result in a payout of at least $5 million to Mr Hofer, was described by one source yesterday as a “colossal screw-up”.

“There are no victors here at all,” said the source, who asked not to be named. “It’s just very unfortunate. The true victim here really, from every perspective, is Mr Hofer, because Mr Hofer has not been well served by his counsel.”

A second source said: “This really should have gone to trial by 2000.”

We asked the legal aid office how much it had spent on Mr Hofer’s case. Rosemary Tyrrell, the legal affairs permanent secretary, replied: “We are unable to provide the information requested since it relates to an individual client and is therefore privileged.”