Judgment: 2013-05-31 · Court archive

High Court sets security for costs at €339,571 for First Active appeals

Justice Gilligan allowed First Active and Ray Jackson’s appeals against the Master’s assessment, setting security at €339,571.07 for the bank and €124,500 for Jackson, with the costs of this appeal payable to the defendants but stayed until the conclusion of the appeals.

High Court of Ireland · [2013] IEHC 370

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • First Active PLC (Defendant)
  • Ray Jackson
  • Brian Cunningham (Plaintiff)
  • Cyril O’Neill
What

Justice Gilligan allowed First Active and Ray Jackson’s appeals against the Master’s assessment, setting security at €339,571.07 for the bank and €124,500 for Jackson, with the costs of this appeal payable to the defendants but stayed until the conclusion of the appeals.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Justice Gilligan gave judgment on 31 May 2013 in appeals by First Active and Jackson against the Master of the High Court’s decision fixing the security. He rejected the appellants’ argument that any challenge had to go directly to the Supreme Court, holding that the High Court could hear the appeals under the Rules of the Superior Courts.

The High Court has set security for costs of €339,571.07 for First Active PLC and €124,500 for Ray Jackson in connection with seven appeals to the Supreme Court. The appeals concern earlier judgments arising from banking transactions.

Justice Gilligan gave judgment on 31 May 2013 in appeals by First Active and Jackson against the Master of the High Court’s decision fixing the security. He rejected the appellants’ argument that any challenge had to go directly to the Supreme Court, holding that the High Court could hear the appeals under the Rules of the Superior Courts.

The Supreme Court had previously ordered security for costs, finding that the plaintiffs and appellants, including Brian Cunningham, were insolvent or impecunious, had no disclosed or clear arguable grounds of appeal, and were pursuing appeals likely to be lengthy. It remitted the amount to the Master to determine. That earlier order and the underlying judgments were not reconsidered in this decision.

The proceedings originated in claims over banking transactions that included allegations of fraud and sought damages exceeding €100 million. The earlier trial judge found no prima facie case on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. Judgments were entered for the bank against plaintiff companies in sums in the region of €60 million each and against Cunningham personally for €2.7 million, with the judgment later specified in this decision as €2,724,548. Those judgments had been appealed, and stays had been placed on the relevant orders for costs.

The Master had set lower figures, including €1,000 plus VAT for each of three appeals he regarded as minor, and €46,000 plus VAT for Jackson. Justice Gilligan found that the Master’s approach did not accord with the Supreme Court’s direction to fix security on the evidence before him. He accepted the costs estimates from Cyril O’Neill & Co, noting there was no reasoned evidence establishing a meaningful alternative, and declined to reduce the figures for the minor appeals to €1,000 plus VAT.

The court applied the usual one-third rule to appeals in which Cunningham was a non-corporate litigant. The parties agreed the final figures, including VAT and adjustments: €339,571.07 for First Active across seven listed appeals and €124,500 for Jackson. The court also awarded the defendants the costs of the High Court appeal, with a stay pending the conclusion of the Supreme Court appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review