The High Court has limited the costs Sri Apparel Limited can recover in its contract dispute with Revolution Workwear Limited to four hearing days, after finding that the plaintiff won the case but recovered less than one tenth of the sum it claimed.
In a note of judgment delivered on 10 October 2013, Ms Justice Laffoy ordered Revolution Workwear to pay Sri Apparel’s costs, to be taxed if the parties could not agree. Donal O’Sullivan, who was sued as guarantor of Revolution Workwear’s obligations, was made jointly and severally liable for costs relating to the guarantee claim, capped at one hearing day.
The costs decision followed the court’s judgment of 21 June 2013. That judgment awarded Sri Apparel €183,157 in damages, while the plaintiff had claimed an aggregate €1,166,520 under three headings. The court also found €68,206 due to the defendants on their counterclaim, reducing the amount recoverable by the plaintiff. The defendants had counterclaimed €228,241, and their claim for general damages for breach of contract was dismissed.
Justice Laffoy said both sides had failed to adopt a sensible businesslike approach. She concluded that the plaintiff’s inflated claim and unsuccessful elements had extended the hearing, while the defendants’ wide-ranging defences also contributed to its length. The case had been at hearing for seven days. The judge rejected the defendants’ request to limit costs to one or two days, but found it fair to cap the plaintiff’s overall costs at four hearing days.
The earlier judgment had also granted the plaintiff permanent injunctive relief. O’Sullivan was found not to have been discharged as guarantor and remained secondarily liable for Revolution Workwear’s indebtedness, determined at €114,951, but only to the extent the company did not pay. The court declined to make him jointly liable for all costs, treating the company and guarantor as separate legal entities.
Safety World Limited, the fourth defendant, was described as peripheral to the issues; the court found no basis to award costs against it. The plaintiff’s claim against Paul Bond had been adjourned by consent with liberty to re-enter, while the defendants’ claim against him for indemnity and contribution remained for determination if necessary. The costs judgment did not decide that outstanding claim. The judge said a stay would be appropriate if O’Sullivan appealed the guarantee decision.