The High Court has ordered Stephanie Moloney to pay the costs of Liberty Insurance DAC after dismissing her claim against the insurer in a judgment delivered in December 2020.
In a separate ruling on 11 February 2021, Mr Justice Heslin rejected Ms Moloney’s request for no costs order. The award covers reserved costs, discovery and legal submissions. The costs are to be adjudicated in the usual way if the parties cannot agree.
The ruling concerned the costs of the claim against Liberty, the second named defendant. The judge had already found that the insurer validly repudiated liability under the relevant policy and dismissed the claim against it. The February ruling did not revisit that decision.
Ms Moloney argued that the court should recognise her conduct in helping the trial proceed efficiently. The parties had agreed that documents could be admitted without formal proof, avoiding the need for witnesses to prove each document. The judge said this benefited both sides and did not justify depriving the successful defendant of its costs.
She also argued that she had pursued one substantive issue and that the case raised a novel point of law with wider value. The judge rejected those characterisations, saying the dispute turned on the wording of the insurance policy and the particular facts, rather than a novel legal question.
The judge also considered a letter sent by Liberty on 12 October 2020, the day before the hearing began. It offered to bear its own costs if the case was withdrawn by 2pm. Ms Moloney did not withdraw the claim. The judge said the letter did not justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event.
The court noted that Ms Moloney had obtained a decree against Cashel Taverns Limited, the first named defendant, which did not take part in the trial. That did not alter the costs outcome in favour of Liberty, which had succeeded in defending the claim against it.
Under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the judge found Liberty had been entirely successful and saw no reason to depart from the usual costs rule. The order was limited to costs in favour of Liberty; the ruling did not make a costs order in favour of Cashel Taverns.