The High Court has limited the legal costs recoverable by Mars Capital Finance DAC after it ultimately succeeded in possession proceedings concerning the principal private residence of Dwayne and Nicola Bedford.
Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty awarded Mars Capital its costs of the Circuit Court proceedings and of the High Court appeal up to and including the first High Court hearing date. She made no order for the company's High Court costs incurred after that point.
The underlying case was a summary application for possession of the Bedfords' home. EBS Mortgage Finance, the original plaintiff, succeeded in the Circuit Court. Mars Capital was later added as a co-respondent, and the respondents ultimately also succeeded in the High Court appeal.
However, the judge said the case had not proceeded successfully on the affidavit evidence initially presented. The affidavits and exhibits were insufficient to establish entitlement to the loans, so further documentation had to be obtained.
Even after that material was supplied, one affidavit supporting the respondents' case remained insufficient. The deponent therefore had to attend court and give oral evidence before the High Court could reach its final decision. The detailed procedural history was addressed in an earlier judgment, EBS Mortgage Finance and Another v Bedford (No. 3) [2025] IEHC 381.
Mars Capital argued that, because it had ultimately succeeded, the normal rule that costs follow the result should apply to both the Circuit Court proceedings and the High Court appeal. The Bedfords made no submissions on costs.
Ms Justice Gearty accepted that Mars Capital's overall success justified a costs order. But she held it would be unfair to award all of the High Court costs because the later stages were required largely due to deficiencies in Mars Capital's own proof.
The recoverable costs will therefore cover the Circuit Court proceedings and the appeal only up to and including its first High Court hearing. The amount is to be assessed if the parties cannot agree it.