The Court of Appeal has awarded costs to the respondents after dismissing Michael Wymes’s appeal in bankruptcy proceedings, and refused to pause the costs order while he seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The ruling, dated 6 October 2020, dealt only with the costs of the appeal. The court had dismissed the appeal on all grounds in a principal judgment delivered on 7 July 2020. It had provisionally indicated that the successful respondents should receive their costs unless a party applied for a different order.
Wymes asked the court to make no order for costs. He relied on circumstances he had raised in his appeal submissions, including the respondents’ refusal to consent to a late appeal from the High Court’s 2018 bankruptcy adjudication, his status as a self-represented litigant and health problems, and allegations concerning the respondents, Mr Wood and others. Those allegations included claims of collusion and fraud relating to his asserted rights as a secured creditor over lands in Cork. They were submissions by Wymes, not findings made in this costs ruling.
Alternatively, Wymes sought a stay of any costs award if he received leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. He attached a draft application for leave to his costs submissions.
The respondents argued that they should receive costs in the ordinary way. They said there were no exceptional circumstances to justify a departure from that approach, and that Wymes had continued to contest matters decided against him. They also said an earlier costs order made against him in 1997 remained unpaid and that the bankruptcy proceedings had imposed further costs on creditors.
Faherty J. said the costs regime gives a party that is entirely successful an entitlement to costs unless the court orders otherwise, while allowing the court to consider the circumstances and the parties’ conduct. She concluded that Wymes’s arguments sought to relitigate matters already determined against him. The respondents had been entirely successful in the appeal, and she found no basis to deny them costs.
The court also refused a stay. Faherty J. said she was not persuaded it would serve the interests of justice, given the case’s prolonged history. She noted that the costs would ultimately be paid from the bankruptcy estate on distribution and would not be immediately recoverable. If Wymes succeeded in obtaining leave to appeal, the Supreme Court could consider any costs application before distribution.
The order was that the respondents receive their costs, with no stay. Kennedy J. and Ní Raifeartaigh J. agreed with the proposed order.