Judgment: 2025-02-12 · Court archive

High Court orders €26,525 payment in road-accident costs ruling, subject to costs assessment

The defendants must pay the plaintiff on the Circuit Court scale up to 6 January 2023, but the plaintiff must pay their costs from that date through the last day of trial.

High Court · [2025] IEHC 228

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Patrick Simons
  • Tony O’Connor (Judge)
What

The defendants must pay the plaintiff on the Circuit Court scale up to 6 January 2023, but the plaintiff must pay their costs from that date through the last day of trial.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 29 April 2021

    The ex tempore ruling was delivered by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor on 12 February 2025. Liability for the accident had been accepted at an early stage. The court said the defendants had tendered €76,215 on 29 April 2021 and accepted the plaintiff’s submissions that the tender had no effect.

  • 13 December 2022; 6 January 2023

    Under the ruling, the defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the Circuit Court scale, with a certificate for senior counsel, up to 6 January 2023. That was the expiry date for accepting an offer in a joint letter dated 13 December 2022. The judge rejected the plaintiff’s submission that the letter was ambiguous in the context of whether a Calderbank letter must be unambiguous to have effect.

  • 30 July 2024

    The plaintiff must pay the defendants’ costs from 6 January 2023 through the last day of trial, 30 July 2024. The plaintiff must also discharge costs reserved for determination during that period. Costs linked to oral and written submissions on a section 26 application are excluded, as the court said that issue had already been addressed in the Simons costs judgment.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Under the ruling, the defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the Circuit Court scale, with a certificate for senior counsel, up to 6 January 2023. That was the expiry date for accepting an offer in a joint letter dated 13 December 2022. The judge rejected the plaintiff’s submission that the letter was ambiguous in the context of whether a Calderbank letter must be unambiguous to have effect.

The High Court has directed two defendants to pay €26,525 to a plaintiff in a dispute over costs arising from a 2014 road traffic accident. The payment cannot be made until costs have been agreed or adjudicated, and the defendants may offset sums due against costs awarded to them.

The ex tempore ruling was delivered by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor on 12 February 2025. Liability for the accident had been accepted at an early stage. The court said the defendants had tendered €76,215 on 29 April 2021 and accepted the plaintiff’s submissions that the tender had no effect.

The court adopted an undisputed summary of relevant events from the defendants’ costs submissions. It also referred to a costs judgment delivered in separate proceedings brought by the plaintiff against Patrick Simons, and said its reasons for the costs directions were set out there.

Under the ruling, the defendants are to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the Circuit Court scale, with a certificate for senior counsel, up to 6 January 2023. That was the expiry date for accepting an offer in a joint letter dated 13 December 2022. The judge rejected the plaintiff’s submission that the letter was ambiguous in the context of whether a Calderbank letter must be unambiguous to have effect.

The plaintiff must pay the defendants’ costs from 6 January 2023 through the last day of trial, 30 July 2024. The plaintiff must also discharge costs reserved for determination during that period. Costs linked to oral and written submissions on a section 26 application are excluded, as the court said that issue had already been addressed in the Simons costs judgment.

Costs are to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. The court made no order as to costs for the costs application itself. The ruling concerns costs and payment arrangements; it does not set out a new decision on the underlying damages claim.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review