The Court of Appeal has awarded the respondents their costs after dismissing Paul Coyle’s appeal against an Isaac Wunder order made by the High Court in proceedings concerning Decobake Limited, which was in liquidation. The costs ruling was delivered electronically by Mr Justice Charles Meenan on 19 February 2025, with agreement from Mr Justice Noonan and Mr Justice Power.
The appeal itself had been dismissed in a judgment delivered on 26 March 2024. The costs ruling says Mr Coyle’s appeal submissions repeated those filed in the High Court. They did not address the High Court judgment or make submissions supporting the stated grounds of appeal, including any claim that the trial judge had cited the wrong legal authorities or applied incorrect principles.
After the appeal was dismissed, the parties were invited to make written submissions on costs. The court had set a 1,000-word limit. Mr Coyle’s submission exceeded 2,000 words. He said he was a lay litigant with a cognitive disability and complained that the judgment did not clearly explain why his arguments had failed. He also sought to revisit the High Court’s refusal to adjourn the case because of his disability and argued that being a lay litigant disadvantaged him in facing an Isaac Wunder order.
Mr Coyle relied on section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, which gives the court discretion to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event, having regard to the circumstances and the parties’ conduct. The respondents relied on sections 168 and 169 and argued there was no basis to depart from the general rule in favour of a party that had been entirely successful.
In the costs ruling, the Court of Appeal found that the respondents had been entirely successful in opposing the appeal and that Mr Coyle had identified no ground for withholding costs. It said his submissions largely sought to re-litigate issues raised in the High Court and during the appeal, and that his disagreement with the appeal judgment was insufficient to avoid a costs order.
The court ordered the respondents’ appeal costs, including any reserved costs, to be adjudicated if the parties do not agree on the amount. The ruling determines costs only; the appeal had already been dismissed.