Supreme Court dismisses appellants' costs claim due to breach of procedural order and lack of submissions.
Irland (IE)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Supreme Court delivered final judgment on September 10, 2021, concluding the litigation between the Butler and O'Shea parties. Although the court initially proposed that respondents should bear the costs of the appeals and prior hearings, the appellants failed to comply with the strict order limiting submissions to the costs issue alone. Instead, the appellants breached court directions by making irrelevant submissions on the merits of the case after it was concluded. Consequently, the court determined that the appellants made no significant argument on costs, allowing the proposed costs order to take effect without further engagement.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generierts. 10 of the Supreme Court Act 1981; s. 11 of the Supreme Court Act 1981: Where a party breaches a court order restricting submissions to a specific issue by raising irrelevant matters on the merits, the court may disregard such submissions and enforce the proposed costs order.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVolltext
THE SUPREME COURT
Clarke C.J. O'Donnell J. MacMenamin J.
[Supreme Court 2009/228]
[Record No. 2006/4849P]
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL AND THOMAS BUTLER LIMITED, MICHAEL BUTLER AND
WILLIAM BUTLER
PLAINTIFFS
AND
BOSOD LIMITED, CROHAN O’SHEA AND THOMAS O’DRISCOLL
DEFENDANTS
[Supreme Court 2010/89]
[Record No. 2006/4849P]
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL AND THOMAS BUTLER LIMITED,
MICHAEL BUTLER AND WILLIAM BUTLER
PLAINTIFFS
AND
BOSOD LIMITED, CROHAN O’SHEA
AND THOMAS O’DRISCOLL
DEFENDANTS
[Supreme Court 2011/60]
[Record No. 2010/39SP]
BETWEEN:
CROHAN O’SHEA
PLAINTIFF
AND
MICHAEL BUTLER AND WILLIAM BUTLER
DEFENDANTS
[Supreme Court 2019/153]
[Record No. 2006/4849P]
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL AND THOMAS BUTLER LIMITED,
MICHAEL BUTLER & WILLIAM BUTLER
PLAINTIFFS
AND
BOSOD LIMITED, CROHAN O’SHEA AND THOMAS O’DRISCOLL
DEFENDANTS
AND
CROHAN O’SHEA AND MICHAEL BUTLER AND WILLIAM BUTLER
DEFENDANTS
Ruling on Costs delivered by Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 5th day of October, 2021
1. On the 10th day of September, 2021, this Court delivered final judgment in the matters named in the title, bringing this litigation to a conclusion. The parties were allowed time to submit brief submissions on the question of costs. The judgment expressed the preliminary view that, subject to what was said in the submissions, the default position appeared to be that the respondents, having succeeded in the appeals, should be granted the costs of the appeals, together with the costs of the hearings before Kelly P., referred to in the judgment.
2. The judgment of this Court stipulated that any submissions on costs were to be confined to that one issue of costs, and no other matter. Regrettably, the appellants did not comply with that order. Instead, in breach of the Court’s direction, the appellants purported to make further legal submissions on the merits of the cases, seeking to raise yet further issues, none of which were relevant, and when, as was abundantly clear, the case had been concluded. Those submissions should not have been made. They have no legal status. The issues before this Court were those as dealt with in the judgment, and no other issues. The Court will not engage with any issue other than costs therefore.
3. In light of the fact that the appellants have made no significant argument on the question of costs, therefore, the costs-order proposed in the final judgment of this Court will now come into effect, as well as any other orders consequent on the judgment. Any stay on orders for costs in the courts below will be vacated. No further issue arises, or can arise. The case is now at an end.