A former civil servant could get thousands of dollars in legal costs after drawing a judge’s attention to a little-known court rule.LeYoni Junos won a Supreme Court ruling in April 2009 that she was unlawfully dismissed from her Government job as administrator of the African Diaspora Heritage Trail Foundation.She represented herself during the civil action, during which she told the court she’d notified the Tourism Board of concerns about alleged fraudulent activities by Henderson Associates Inc., a Department of Tourism contractor.Ms Junos, 49, from Warwick, said Tourism Minister and Premier Ewart Brown had close ties with the firm. Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley dismissed her claims that she lost her job because of political interference by Dr Brown.However, he found in favour of her claim that her temporary contract was unlawfully terminated, meaning she was due backdated pay from May 2008 to February 19 2009 when a permanent appointment was made to the post.Mr Justice Kawaley also said Ms Junos was entitled to costs, although he did not specify a figure. Ms Junos told the judge on Friday in an affidavit that the Attorney General’s Chambers never drew up the order for costs, and she was yet to receive anything.She also highlighted a little-known section of the Supreme Court Rules saying that people who represent themselves are permitted not only to claim back their expenditure on the case, but also up to two thirds of what it would have cost to pay a lawyer.“By this rule, litigants-in-person were allowed substantial costs in addition to their disbursements, which the court at the time of the judgment appears to have been unaware, in any event,” she said.She told the judge about a precedent-setting appeal case in England in 2002 where a man who represented himself in court got his £120 costs payout increased to more than £10,000.Mr Justice Kawaley agreed he was unaware of the rule, telling Ms Junos: “I have never had to consider that provision.”He added that he was “not aware of the more generous rule that it existed. It happens so rarely that trials go the full distance with a litigant-in-person, no-one’s aware of it”.He upheld her position that the costs order had never been drawn up and advised her to draw up a bill and present to the Attorney General’s chambers. If the parties cannot agree on a figure, the matter will have to be considered by the Supreme Court Registrar.Ms Junos declined to comment afterwards on how much she will be seeking, but said she was happy the Attorney General’s chambers did not contest her claim.She believes she may be the first person to use the Supreme Court rule covering costs for people who represent themselves in court.“I think it’s important that people know that they do have a right to costs if they represent themselves,” she told The Royal Gazette.“I believe that this particular issue of litigants-in-person claiming costs is of public interest because it appears that the courts were not apprised of the rule.“There may be some people coming forward [later] and at least they will know they’re entitled to have the costs of their time.”