Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
IEHC 351 ECLI:IE:HC:2021:351 KI-generiert

High Court dismisses third party application and awards plaintiff reasonable costs in default of agreement.

Geschäftsnummer IEHC 351
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Irland (IE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Teilweise gutgeheissen (Partially Allowed)
Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The High Court dismissed the third defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claims against it. While the substantive claims were previously refused, the court granted the plaintiff's request for reasonable costs of the application. The decision rests on the third defendant's voluntary concession of costs in the absence of opposing submissions.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

s. 51 of the Courts Act 2004; s. 34 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2015: Where a third party application is dismissed and the opposing party concedes costs, the court may award reasonable costs to the applicant subject to a stay pending appeal.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
third party application strike out application reasonable costs concession of costs stay on execution default of agreement costs adjudication Vollstreckungskosten

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
s. 51 of the Courts Act 2004
s. 34 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2015

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
[2021] IEHC 301
High Court refuses dismissal of mortgage claim against bank due to insufficient pleading specificity regarding statute bar.
KI-generiert
IECA 224
Court grants stay on costs pending final determination of underlying proceedings in construction dispute.
IEHC 474
High Court refuses stay pending appeal but grants stay on adjudication and costs in public procurement dispute.
IECA 55
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal and refuses stay of costs order against appellants. The court upholds the High Court's decision that the claim was time-barred. The appellants' attempt to introduce new documents was rejected as inadmissible. The court emphasizes that costs follow the event when a party is entirely successful. The stay application failed because the appellants could not demonstrate an arguable ground of appeal. The court ruled that the appellants' conduct did not warrant an exception to the costs rule.
IECA 216
Court of Appeal dismisses costs stay application and rejects bias claim against judge. The court rules that costs follow the event and finds no merit in the bias allegation.
IECA 94
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal on costs, awarding respondent costs as appellant failed to justify departure from 'costs follow the event'.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

NO REDACTION NECESSARY THE HIGH COURT CHANCERY [2021] IEHC 351 [2018 No. 2658P] BETWEEN EOIN FANNON PLAINTIFF AND TOM O’BRIEN AND PROMONTORIA (OYSTER) DAC AND BY ORDER ULSTER BANK IRELAND DAC DEFENDANTS RULING of Mr. Justice Keane delivered on the 19 May 2021

Introduction

1. On 28 April 2021, I gave judgment refusing the application of the third defendant, Ulster Bank Ireland DAC (‘Ulster’), for an order dismissing, as bound to fail, the claims brought against it by the plaintiff, Eoin Fannon.

2. This ruling should be read in conjunction with that judgment, which can be found under the neutral citation [2021] IEHC 301.

3. In accordance with the joint statement made by the Chief Justice and the Presidents of each court jurisdiction on 24 March 2020 on the delivery of judgments during the Covid-

19 pandemic, I invited the parties to seek agreement on any outstanding issues, including the costs of the application, failing which they were to electronically file

4. Ulster’s solicitors wrote on 12 May 2021, indicating that Ulster does not oppose the making of an order granting Mr Fannon his reasonable costs of the application, to be adjudicated upon in default of agreement, subject to a stay on the execution of that costs order in the event of an appeal up to the date of the first direction hearing in the Court of Appeal. I have received no countervailing submission.

5. The order suggested seems to me to meet the justice of the situation.

Conclusion

6. In summary, I will make the following final orders:

(1) An order dismissing the application.

(2) An order directing Ulster to pay Mr Fannon his reasonable costs of the application, to include all reserved costs and the costs of submissions, which costs are to be adjudicated upon in default of agreement, with a stay on the execution of that costs order in the event of an appeal up to the date of the first directions hearing in the Court of Appeal.