The High Court has refused to delay enforcement of a costs order against a plaintiff whose claim had already been dismissed as statute-barred. Mr Justice Heslin ordered David Murphy to pay Denis Foley’s costs, including the costs of the costs application and all reserved costs, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree.
The ruling, delivered on 20 December 2023, concerned costs only. In an earlier judgment on 16 November, the court dismissed Murphy’s claim after finding that he had failed to apply to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board within the statutory two-year period. The court said the missed deadline resulted from an oversight and omission by his then solicitor. It also found that Murphy had not established unconscionable conduct by Foley or a basis to prevent Foley relying on the limitation period.
Murphy asked the court to stay the costs order for 36 months while he pursued professional negligence proceedings against his former solicitors. His submissions said he could not afford the costs, had suffered extensive injuries affecting his ability to work, and expected that costs might be met following an award in the separate proceedings. He argued that immediate enforcement could affect his day-to-day expenses and ability to pursue that case.
Justice Heslin said the court had no information about Murphy’s assets or the funding arrangements for the separate case. Even assuming he lacked the means to pay, the judge found no evidence that this would prevent him from pursuing the professional negligence proceedings. The judge described parts of the submissions as bare assertions.
Applying section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the court said an entirely successful party is presumptively entitled to costs, subject to the court’s discretion. The judge also relied on Court of Appeal guidance that a successful party should generally be able to enforce a costs order, and that the person seeking a stay must show it is in the interests of justice.
The judge said Murphy was not appealing the dismissal, making the decision final between him and Foley. The proposed separate proceedings concerned Murphy’s former solicitors, who were not parties to this case. The court concluded that their outcome did not justify postponing Foley’s entitlement to costs.
The court refused the requested stay and ordered costs in Foley’s favour, including reserved costs, to be assessed if not agreed. The ruling did not determine the professional negligence proceedings against Murphy’s former solicitors.