The Supreme Court has awarded the occupants of two Dublin properties 80% of their costs in an appeal brought by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC. The costs cover proceedings in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and are to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. Counsel costs are limited to one Senior Counsel and two Junior Counsel. The award will not be stayed.
The ruling, delivered on 22 November 2023, concerns costs following the Court’s principal judgment of 31 July 2023. In that judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed Pepper’s appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision, though for narrower reasons. It held that Pepper had not personally served the individual occupants with the relevant order and had not complied with requirements for a penal endorsement. Those failures defeated Pepper’s application to have the occupants attached and committed for contempt.
The costs ruling treated the occupants as largely, but not entirely, successful. They succeeded on the central issue of individual service in the contempt proceedings. Pepper, however, succeeded on some other arguments, including the use of proceedings against persons unknown, the effect of a stay granted in January 2021 and whether the appeal was moot. The Court said the title should have been amended once the occupants’ names became known.
The Court also considered conduct on both sides. It said some occupants had remained at the properties and their conduct was not generally praiseworthy. It repeated its criticism of Pepper for failing to disclose to the Court of Appeal that the properties were in the process of being sold, and for an inappropriate warning that it might seek a wasted costs order against the occupants’ solicitor. The Court said there had been no basis for that suggestion.
Pepper had sought to limit the occupants to half their costs and to stay any costs award pending the continuation of possession proceedings. The occupants argued they had been substantially successful and that Pepper’s litigation conduct should affect the costs decision. The Court declined to stay the award, saying the main event in the appeal had concluded, without prejudging the continuing possession proceedings, which it said presumably involved a claim for trespass damages.
The Court rejected any request for costs on a solicitor-client basis. It also observed that six junior counsel had been retained, when it appeared that two could have addressed the occupants’ separate interests. The final order limits counsel costs to one Senior Counsel and two Junior Counsel.