The High Court has ruled that Webprint Concepts Ltd must provide security for costs to seven defendants in its commercial dispute over the transfer of newspaper titles from the Thomas Crosbie Holdings group in March 2013. The court dismissed the separate application by Thomas Crosbie Printers Ltd (TCP).
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan on 28 June 2013, concerned applications under section 390 of the Companies Act 1963. Webprint accepted that it could not pay the defendants’ costs if they successfully defended the case. The judge said the applications required a preliminary assessment of whether defendants had a prima facie defence; the court was not deciding the disputed facts or the merits of the underlying claims.
Webprint alleges that a planned receivership and related transactions were designed to allow TCP and the wider group to avoid obligations under a 15-year printing agreement. The defendants dispute aspects of the allegations. On 6 March 2013, titles held by the group were transferred through a series of transactions, and the Irish Times began printing them the following day.
TCP conceded it had not established a prima facie defence to Webprint’s claim for arrears, stated as €2,830,800, and the judge found it had not shown a prima facie defence to substantial claims concerning notice and efforts to secure continued printing by Webprint after the titles’ transfer. Although TCP had a prima facie defence to a separate claim concerning removal of daily newspapers from the agreement, the judge dismissed its application for security.
The other defendants—Thomas Crosbie Holdings Ltd, Bontury Ltd trading as Landmark Media Investments, Thomas Patrick Crosbie, Alan Crosbie, Allied Irish Banks plc, receiver Kieran Wallace and the Irish Times—were found to have established prima facie defences. The judge also found Webprint had not shown that its inability to pay costs was caused by the alleged wrongdoing at a level sufficient to meet the likely costs, estimated in aggregate at €3.1 million. She rejected its arguments based on public importance and defendants’ conduct.
The court therefore ruled that the second to eighth defendants were entitled to security for costs. It did not specify the form or amounts of the orders, saying it would hear counsel on those details. The underlying claims remained unresolved.