The High Court has awarded Profi Welders s.r.o. the costs of both the plenary hearing and an earlier summary hearing, and refused R&R Mechanical Limited’s application to stay the court’s orders pending a possible appeal.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the ruling on 5 March 2019. The application followed the court’s earlier judgment in *Profi Welders s.p.o. v. R&R Mechanical Ltd* [2019] IEHC 36. The judge noted that R&R had not yet decided whether to appeal.
The parties did not dispute that Profi Welders should receive the costs of the plenary hearing. The judge also awarded it the costs of the summary hearing, which had been reserved for decision by the trial judge. Profi argued that the factual assertions advanced as an arguable defence at the summary hearing were almost entirely rejected at the plenary hearing. R&R submitted that the case was never suitable for summary determination and that costs could have been avoided if Profi had agreed earlier to proceed to a plenary hearing.
The judge said he had some sympathy for R&R’s position, but concluded that the rejection at trial of almost all the facts relied on for the defence supported awarding the summary hearing costs to Profi.
On the stay application, the judge considered factors identified by the Supreme Court in *Redmond v. Ireland*. He noted that liability and the amount claimed were not truly disputed, and that R&R’s counterclaim had been rejected on the factual evidence. No proposed appeal grounds had been identified, and R&R had not argued that the trial findings lacked credible evidential support. The judge also considered R&R’s submission that recovering money might be difficult if Profi, which R&R said was from Slovakia, dissipated it. He observed that both Ireland and Slovakia are EU member states and that Profi appeared to be a substantial concern.
The judge acknowledged that an appeal could delay the matter by about two years and that R&R had a right of appeal. On balance, despite some hesitation, he refused to stay the court’s orders. The ruling addressed costs and a stay only; it did not decide whether R&R would appeal.