Judgment: 2017-05-12 · Court archive

High Court stays truck cartel proceedings against Lombard pending about €4,000 in costs

The stay applies to the claim against the first-named defendant until Lenaghan International Transport pays costs from an earlier discontinued action.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 298

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Lenaghan International Transport Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Lombard Ireland Limited
  • Max Barrett (Judge)
What

The stay applies to the claim against the first-named defendant until Lenaghan International Transport pays costs from an earlier discontinued action.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge said the prospects of success in the later action would generally be irrelevant, though a plaintiff’s financial circumstances might matter in a suitable case. Here, he found the proceedings involved substantially the same parties and cause of action, and that no good reason had been shown against a stay. He ordered the stay against Lombard until the earlier costs are paid. The order did not stay the proceedings against the other defendants.

The High Court has stayed proceedings against Lombard Ireland Limited until Lenaghan International Transport Limited pays the costs of an earlier action it discontinued. The costs were about €4,000, subject to possible taxation.

Mr Justice Max Barrett made the order on 12 May 2017 under Order 26, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. That rule allows a stay where a later action concerns the same or substantially the same cause of action as a discontinued one and the earlier costs remain unpaid.

The proceedings, issued in November 2016, name Lombard and 14 other defendants, including truck manufacturers and related companies. The judgment says they are identical to an earlier set of proceedings except that the earlier action included an additional defendant and claimed fraudulent misrepresentation; the current action alleges negligent misrepresentation.

Lombard sought a stay of the current proceedings against it until costs in the earlier action, record number 2016 8231P, were paid. At the hearing, none of those costs had been paid, despite repeated requests. The judge said no proper explanation had been offered and described the circumstances as “can pay, won’t pay”.

The judge treated the rule as giving the court discretion, rather than requiring an automatic stay. Drawing on older decisions concerning actions that had been dismissed, he said the principles could apply by analogy to a discontinued action. A difference in the parties, the precise cause of action or the capacity in which a party sues does not necessarily prevent a stay where the proceedings substantially overlap.

The judge said the prospects of success in the later action would generally be irrelevant, though a plaintiff’s financial circumstances might matter in a suitable case. Here, he found the proceedings involved substantially the same parties and cause of action, and that no good reason had been shown against a stay. He ordered the stay against Lombard until the earlier costs are paid. The order did not stay the proceedings against the other defendants.

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