The High Court has awarded costs to three plaintiffs after refusing a defendant’s application to dismiss their proceedings, finding it unreasonable to bring the application on the evidence before the court.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons made the costs ruling on 15 May 2023, following his earlier decision refusing Kenmare Property Finance DAC’s motion to dismiss the case as bound to fail or an abuse of process. The earlier judgment, delivered on 13 April, left a provisional view on costs and invited written submissions. The judge considered written and oral submissions from both sides.
The judge said a motion to dismiss proceedings is an exceptional remedy. In this case, he had been unable to determine from the documentation the precise status of an email concerning an overpayment of funds. He said the case would require discovery, oral evidence and cross-examination if it did not settle. The ruling concerned the reasonableness of bringing the motion for costs purposes; the judge made no finding on the eventual outcome of the underlying case.
The plaintiffs were representing themselves in the High Court. Their costs there are confined to allowable expenses and outlay. They had legal representation at the Circuit Court hearing and are entitled to those legal costs in the ordinary way. The costs are to be adjudicated under Part 10 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 if the parties cannot agree. The judge refused the defendant’s request to stay the costs order, saying the High Court proceedings had concluded and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their costs incurred there.
The judge also dealt with costs relating to the defendant’s application to obtain a transcript of the digital audio recording of the April hearing. He had granted that application, and the plaintiffs had not objected. The defendant said the transcript could be relevant to the merits, including possible cross-examination of the plaintiffs about their submissions and attitude to the proceedings. The judge accepted that as a legitimate purpose, but said the transcript’s cost was not reasonably incurred for the purpose of charging it to the other side. He made no order on the costs of that application.
The judge again urged the parties to consider mediation, observing that the costs incurred to date were likely to exceed the value of the claim.