Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
IECA 51 ECLI:IE:CA:2025:51 Généré par l'IA

Court of Appeal dismisses appeal on costs ruling, awarding costs to Promontoria as they were wholly successful.

Numéro de cause IECA 51
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Irlande (IE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the High Court's refusal to strike out proceedings and grant an interlocutory injunction. Promontoria successfully opposed the appeal, leading the court to view them as wholly successful in opposing the appellant's claims. Consequently, the court ordered Promontoria to recover their costs from the appellant, while declining to award costs for a specific prior motion handled by consent.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Costs Act 1963; Costs follow the event: where a party is wholly successful in opposing an appeal, they are entitled to recover their costs from the appellant.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
costs follow the event interlocutory injunction strike out proceedings Court of Appeal costs adjudication

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Costs Act 1963

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

APPROVED NO REDACTION NEEDED

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] IECA 51

Court of Appeal Record Number: 2024/270

High Court Record Number: 2024/698P

Costello P. Meenan J. McDonald J.

BETWEEN/

YEOKSEE OOI

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

- AND –

IRELAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BRIAN MCDONAGH &

PROMONTORIA SCARIFF DAC

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

RULING ON COSTS delivered by Mr. Justice Charles Meenan on the 28th day of February 2025

1. On 21 February 2025 the Court delivered its judgment in the appellant’s appeal against an order of the High Court (Cahill J.) refusing the third named respondent’s (Promontoria) application to strike out the appellant’s proceedings and refusing the appellant’s application for an interlocutory injunction.

2. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed, as was Promontoria’s cross-appeal against the order of the High Court refusing to strike out the proceedings.

3. At the conclusion of the judgment (at para. 36) the provisional view of the Court was expressed that as Promontoria had been “wholly successful” in opposing the appeal, it was entitled to its costs.

4. Subsequently, in correspondence received from the appellant, the following was stated: - “For the avoidance of doubt and in keeping with the policy of ‘costs follow the event’ I do concede costs on my motion which was refused.”

5. Promontoria delivered its submissions on 28 February 2025. In the course of these submissions Promontoria sought the costs of a motion issued by the appellant on 27 November 2024, returnable to 13 December 2024. The reliefs sought in this motion included an order extending the interim injunction granted by the High Court and an order permitting the admittance of further evidence in the appeal. The motion was dealt with by consent of the parties and the order of the court made no reference to costs. In these circumstances Promontoria will not be granted an order for costs in respect of the said motion.

6. Having regard to the submissions received by the parties, the following orders for costs will be made: -

(1) An order for costs in favour of the third named respondent (Promontoria) against the appellant in respect of the costs of the appellant’s appeal to include all reserved costs, such costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

(2) No order as to the costs associated with Promontoria’s cross-appeal.