Security for costs

Unlimited company could not be ordered to provide security for costs.

Apr 26, 2012 By Mark Tottenham BL in Ireland High Court, Laffoy J No Comments Tags: Arbitration, Company law, Security for costs

ABM Construction v. Habbingley Ltd [2012] IEHC 61
(High Court, Laffoy J, 15 February 2012)

High Court dismisses an application, made by a respondent to an arbitration, for security for costs to be ordered against an unlimited company.

Arbitration – security for costs – s 22, Arbitration Act 1954 – whether court had jurisdiction to order security for costs against claimant – claimant having been converted from limited to unlimited company – arbitration arising from construction dispute – s.390, Companies Act 1963 – Order 29, Rules More

No security for costs in claim for costs incurred in abandoned planning application.

Apr 5, 2012 By Mark Tottenham BL in Charleton J No Comments Tags: Company law, Planning, Security for costs

County Monaghan Anti-Pylon Ltd v. Eirgrid PLC [2012] IEHC 103
(High Court, Charleton J, 30 March 2012)

High Court refuses to order security for costs in claim for costs incurred by plaintiff company in abandoned planning application.

Security for costs – s 390, Companies Act 1963 – claim by plaintiff company for costs incurred in planning process that was abandoned by the defendant – plaintiff company unable to pay costs of action – company established to oppose routing of More

Security for costs ordered for Supreme Court appeals.

Mar 29, 2012 By Mark Tottenham BL in Macken J No Comments Tags: Security for costs

Moorview Developments Ltd v. First Active PLC [2012] IESC 22
(Supreme Court, Macken J (nem diss), 23 February 2012)

Supreme Court grants orders for security for costs in respect of appeals from the High Court of seven sets of proceedings.

Applications for security for costs in respect of appeals from High Court – seven sets of proceedings under appeal – whether impecuniosity of plaintiffs was caused by the respondents to the appeals – whether appeals in good faith – whether issues of More

Plaintiff ordered to lodge €150,000 as initial security for costs.

Mar 9, 2012 By Mark Tottenham BL in Clarke J (Frank) No Comments Tags: Security for costs

Harlequin Property [SVG] Ltd v. O’Halloran [2012] IEHC 13
(High Court, Clarke J, 19 January 2012)

High Court orders €150,000 (inc VAT) to be lodged as security for costs, pending a later determination of the full costs likely to be incurred. (Full text.)

Contract law – construction – Commercial Court – level of security for costs – whether security to cover costs already incurred – whether security to take VAT into account – the “one-third rule” – 0 29, RSC – s 390, Companies Act 1963 – More

Claimant in arbitration ordered to provide security for costs.

Dec 15, 2011 By Mark Tottenham BL in Laffoy J No Comments Tags: Arbitration, Company law, Security for costs

Frank McGrath Construction Ltd v. One Pery Square Hotel Ltd [2010] IEHC 524
(High Court, Laffoy J, 9 September 2010)

High Court grants order directing the claimant in an arbitration to provide security for the costs of the respondent. (Full text.)

Security for costs – arbitration – s 22, Arbitration Act 1954 – building agreement – notification of application for order under s 201(1), Companies Act 1963 – creditors’ meetings – whether respondent and counterclaimant to arbitration More

No security for costs ordered where no bona fide defence established to claim.

Nov 16, 2011 By Mark Tottenham BL in Laffoy J No Comments Tags: Practice and procedure, Security for costs

Maulbawn Ltd [in receivership] v. Haulbowline Industry Ltd [2011] IEHC 394
(High Court, Laffoy J, 7 October 2011)

High Court dismisses defendant’s application for security for costs on the grounds that no bona fide defence had been established to the claim, and extends time for the filing of a defence for two weeks. (Full text.)

Claim arising from licence agreement pending planning permission – claim for possession – judgment in default of defence – security for costs – delay in seeking security for costs – whether a prima facie defence had been established. More

Danish Polish Telecommunication Group v. Telekomunikacja Polska – HC – Arbitration, enforcement of international award, adjournment, security for costs

Oct 28, 2011 By Mark Tottenham BL in Finlay Geoghegan J No Comments Tags: Arbitration, Security for costs

Danish Polish Telecommunication Group I/S v. Telekomunikacja Polska SA [2011] IEHC 369 (6 October 2011)

High Court (Finlay Geoghegan J): a) grants adjournment of application for recognition and enforcement of international arbitration award, pending the outcome of Austrian action to set aside award; and b) orders security for costs in the sum of €1.5 million. (Full text.)

Arbitration – recognition and enforcement of international award – Article 35(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law – ss 8 and 23 of the Arbitration Act 2010 – award of over €268 million – arbitration in Vienna subject to challenge in Austrian courts – application for adjournment of Irish action – entitlement of court to adjourn decision on enforcement as distinct from placing a stay on decision already reached – Article 36(2) of Model Law – whether necessary for Irish court to determine questions of Austrian law – whether grounds for contending that Austrian proceedings may succeed in having award set aside – whether Irish court had jurisdiction to give leave to enforce part of award over which there was, allegedly, no contest – security for costs in the event of an adjournment -

Brostrom Tankers AB v. Factorias Vulcano SA [2004] 2 I.R. 191
Dalimpex Ltd. v. Janicki and Others (30th May, 2003) Case 509
Ipco (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. [2009] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 611
Ipco (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 611
Soleh Boneh International Ltd v. Government of the Republic of Uganda and National Housing Corp [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 208 at 212

Goode Concrete v. CRH PLC – HC – Affidavit evidence, allegedly scandalous material, relevance

Sep 12, 2011 By Mark Tottenham BL in Cooke J No Comments Tags: Competition law, Practice and procedure, Rules of evidence, Security for costs

Goode Concrete v. CRH PLC [2010] IEHC 310 (28 July 2011)

High Court (Cooke J) refuses application to strike out allegedly scandalous material on affidavit, but rules that the material was inadmissible on the grounds that it was irrelevant to the issue of security for costs. (Full text.)

Rules of evidence – competition law proceedings – security for costs – application to strike out material on affidavit – allegedly scandalous content – embarrassing material not relevant to issues before court – Order 40, rule 12, Rules of Superior Courts.

Connaughton Road Construction Limited v. Laing O’Rourke Ireland Limited [2009] I.E.H.C. 7

Valebrook Developments Ltd in recievership -v- Keelgrove Properties Ltd – Security for costs

Jun 8, 2011 By Mark Tottenham BL in Clarke J (Frank) No Comments Tags: Security for costs

Valebrook Developments Ltd [in recievership] -v- Keelgrove Properties Ltd [2011] IEHC 173 (Clarke J, 8 April 2011)

High Court refuses to grant order for security for costs, on condition that the plaintiff make an undertaking relating to the security ordered in a related action. (Full text.)

Security for costs – claim for moneys lent to defendant – plaintiff company in receivership – defendant joint venture partially owned by plaintiff – plaintiff unable to pay costs – prima facie defence shown by defendant – whether special circumstances existed to justify refusal of security for costs – existance of separate proceedings in which order for security already granted – whether debt owed by defendant to plaintiff was an asset to be taken into account for purposes of security for costs – whether undertaking relating to separate proceedings would suffice in lieu of order for security.

Moorview Developments Limited & Ors v. First Active Plc & Ors [2009] IEHC 214
Inter Finance Group Ltd v. KPMG Peat Marwick (Unreported, High Court, Morris P., 29th June, 1998)
Tribune Newspapers v. Associated Newspapers Ireland (Unreported, High Court, Finlay Geoghegan J., 25th March, 2011)
West Donegal Land League Ltd v. Udaras Na Gaeltachta & Ors [2006] IESC 29

Pierse Desmond Ltd -v- NicFhionnlaoich – Security for costs

May 23, 2011 By Mark Tottenham BL in Hogan J No Comments Tags: Company law, Security for costs

Pierse Desmond Ltd -v- NicFhionnlaoich [2011] IEHC 145 (Hogan J, 5 April 2011)

High Court orders limited company to provide security for costs in professional negligence claim against former solicitors. (Full text.)

Security for costs – s 390 Companies Act 1963 – claim for professional negligence brought by limited company – need to establish bona fide defence – evidence that plaintiff would not be able to discharge costs – whether inability to discharge costs stems from alleged wrongdoing by defendant – onus on plaintiff to show why no order for security should be made – delay by defendant in making application for security.

James Elliott Construction Co. Ltd. v. Irish Asphalt Ltd. [2010] IEHC 234
Interfinance Group Ltd v. K.P.M.G. Peat Marwick (Unreported, High Court, Morris P., 29th June, 1998)
SEE Co. Ltd. v. Public Lighting Services Ltd. [1987] I.L.R.M. 255
Millstream Recycling Ltd. v. Gerard Tierney and Newtown Lodge Ltd. [2010] IEHC 55
Connaughton Road Construction Ltd. v. Laing O’Rourke (Ireland) Ltd. [2009] IEHC 7

1 2

Stare Decisis Hibernia

All recently-published judgments of the Irish Superior Courts