Judgment: 2021-02-01 · Court archive

High Court awards plaintiff costs after refusing to dismiss delayed claim

The court ordered the defendant to pay costs across three courts and of the costs hearing, with execution stayed until the action is finally determined.

High Court, Dublin · [2021] IEHC 42

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Kestutis Naudziunas (Plaintiff)
  • OKR Group (Defendant)
  • Richard Humphreys (Judge)
What

The court ordered the defendant to pay costs across three courts and of the costs hearing, with execution stayed until the action is finally determined.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court said the general rule is that costs follow the event and that departing from it is exceptional. The defendant relied on delay and the parties’ conduct, but the judge found those points insufficient to displace the ordinary rule, noting that both sides bore some responsibility for delay. He also said the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 did not strictly apply: the proceedings began before the relevant provision came into force, and that provision concerns success in proceedings rather than individual interlocutory applications.

The High Court has ordered OKR Group to pay Kestutis Naudziunas’s costs of an application to strike out his proceedings, including costs in the County Registrar’s Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court. The order also covers the High Court costs hearing and costs reserved in any of those courts. Execution is stayed until the action is finally determined.

In a judgment delivered on 1 February 2021, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys dealt with costs after an earlier ruling, in November 2020, that the proceedings should not be dismissed on grounds of delay. The judge had indicated that costs would likely follow the event, subject to further submissions. Naudziunas sought his costs; OKR Group argued for alternatives including no order, reserving costs, limiting them to High Court costs, or measuring them.

The court said the general rule is that costs follow the event and that departing from it is exceptional. The defendant relied on delay and the parties’ conduct, but the judge found those points insufficient to displace the ordinary rule, noting that both sides bore some responsibility for delay. He also said the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 did not strictly apply: the proceedings began before the relevant provision came into force, and that provision concerns success in proceedings rather than individual interlocutory applications.

The defendant argued that it would be unjust to face a claimed costs figure of €67,195 in a case involving a €60,000 damages claim. The judge noted that costs are not legally capped at the amount in dispute and that the figure cited did not mean costs would be assessed at that level. He declined to measure costs, leaving their amount to the specialist adjudication process.

The court set aside all costs orders made below and awarded the plaintiff costs of the strike-out application across the three courts, together with the costs of the costs hearing. It stayed execution of the costs until final determination of the action. The judgment concerns costs; it does not determine the underlying damages claim.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review