TAXPAYERS have shelled out at least £90,000 for Rose Gibb’s court case as both parties wait for the judgement.

Miss Gibb, who was in charge of Maidstone, Kent and Sussex and Pembury hospitals during two virulent C-diff outbreaks, is suing her former employer for £175,573.

The High Court in London was told that when the C-diff scandal broke, Miss Gibb agreed to leave her post immediately with £250,000 severance pay.

But after health secretary Alan Johnson intervened, the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust offered just £75,000, representing six months’ pay in lieu of notice.

At the High Court last week the trust claimed the agreement to pay her to step down immediately was made outside its legal powers.

But Miss Gibb’s legal team said it was not an unreasonable offer and she was “misled deliberately or recklessly” into believing the trust had the power to make the deal.

It emerged during the final day of summing up that court costs, based on a two-and-a-half, to three-day case, would be £90,000.

The case lasted five days and all legal costs, which include the £90,000 and any costs which the judge may decide to award against the trust, will be met by the Department of Health.

The options open to Mr Justice Treacy, who heard the case, are to award the full £175,000, a lesser sum, looking at whether Miss Gibb could have had a potentially successful unfair dismissal claim, or award nothing.

A trust spokesman said: “The legal costs were estimated at between £80-£90,000, based on a business case. The Department of Health has agreed to cover the legal costs.

“As the outcome of the case is not yet known and the possibility of any further action is undecided, it is premature to assess the full legal costs.”

Jon Restell, chief executive of Miss Gibb’s union, Managers In Partnership, which has supported Miss Gibb in her action, said the union would not comment on the funding of the case.

Mr Justice Treacy is expected to make his judgement within two weeks. He retired on Friday, (January 30) to consider “complex legal arguments.”