The High Court has appointed a receiver over part of any damages or settlement Colette O’Connell may recover in a separate assault claim, to help satisfy an unpaid costs judgment against her. The order is limited to the amount due under that judgment, including interest, and excludes specified costs of the damages claim.
The costs judgment was obtained by Lavine Limited on 31 July 2003 after O’Connell’s unsuccessful judicial review proceedings. The costs were taxed at €58,315.47. The judgment records that interest calculated to 1 October 2006 was €15,315.47 and gives the total due at that date as €73,477.49. The amount remained unpaid.
O’Connell’s separate High Court action seeks damages for an alleged assault in May 1999. Her pleadings had closed, but the case had not been set down for trial. She told the court that she had offered to pay Lavine 75% of any damages recovered, but Lavine had not accepted the proposal. She also argued that appointing a receiver could make it harder for her to fund the claim and allow the alleged assailant to avoid liability. Those were her submissions; the judgment did not determine the assault claim.
Lavine sought the receiver order, arguing that ordinary enforcement methods could not reliably reach any future award or settlement. O’Connell’s counsel argued that the application was premature because the amount, if any, she might recover was unknown. The court considered whether it could appoint a receiver over money that might become payable in the future.
Mr Justice Michael Peart concluded that the court had jurisdiction to do so and that the ordinary methods of execution were insufficient in the circumstances. He said O’Connell’s concern about funding her claim did not prevent the order, but directed that it exclude any sum agreed for costs of the damages claim or taxed on a party-and-party basis if there was no agreement.
The court appointed accountant Jim Gilligan of Gilligan & Co as receiver over only so much of any settlement or damages award in O’Connell’s action against Maurice Troy as would be required to satisfy the 2003 costs judgment, including interest to the date of payment. The order does not decide whether O’Connell will succeed in the assault claim or how much, if anything, she may recover.