The Court of Appeal has refused Piotr Skoczylas’s application for an additional stay on a costs order in favour of Permanent TSB Group Holdings plc. The order remains subject to the separate stay already granted while Mr Skoczylas pursues an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if leave is granted, until that appeal is determined.
The application heard on 11 May 2020 sought to delay execution of the costs order until the conclusion of separate proceedings brought by Mr Skoczylas and Scotchstone Capital Fund Limited against Ireland and the Attorney General. Those proceedings seek damages for alleged failures to apply EU law and challenge aspects of the constitutionality of the Credit Institutions Stabilisation Act 2010. The Court of Appeal did not decide the merits of those claims. It assumed for this application that they raised arguable issues and might succeed.
Mr Skoczylas argued that enforcement could lead to his bankruptcy and cause serious personal and professional harm. He also said bankruptcy could impede the separate litigation. The court found that the evidence did not establish how likely bankruptcy was, where any insolvency proceedings could be brought, or what their consequences would be. It also found no adequate basis to conclude that bankruptcy would prevent the separate claims from continuing.
The court was not persuaded that success in either set of proceedings would likely result in the costs order being set aside. It noted that the company was not a party to the claims against the State, and that the claims for damages would not automatically overturn the earlier decisions in the capital reduction case. The court also said the costs order was not the only potential source of bankruptcy risk, as at least one other costs order against Mr Skoczylas was in the process of being quantified.
The court concluded that the material did not show likely irreparable harm if the additional stay were refused. It found that delaying enforcement, potentially for years, would significantly prejudice the company, which had incurred substantial costs in related litigation. The application was therefore refused.
The court expressed the provisional view that the company was entitled to the costs of this stay application. It allowed Mr Skoczylas 10 days from the judgment to make written submissions on costs, with a response period for the company. If no submissions were made within the stated time, the court said it would make an order in the terms indicated.