The High Court has ordered a former hotel worker who now lives in Brazil to provide security for costs in her planned appeal of a failed personal injuries claim. The order concerns costs that may arise in the appeal; the court did not decide the appeal itself or determine the underlying injury claim.
Fabiele Marques de Abreu, a Brazilian national who previously lived in Ireland, worked at The Castle Hotel on Great Denmark Street in Dublin. She alleges that a door’s closing mechanism caught one of her hands while she was carrying a glass, causing a laceration. Her claim failed in the Circuit Court, and she intends to appeal to the High Court.
Findlater Hotels Limited, trading as The Castle Hotel, applied for security for costs. Its counsel estimated the appeal could cost €25,000, excluding the existing Circuit Court costs order in the hotel’s favour. The judgment says that if Marques de Abreu lost the appeal and a further costs order were made against her, she could face a substantial liability.
The hotel relied on the anticipated costs and practical difficulties of enforcing Irish court orders in Brazil. Its counsel accepted that the application would not succeed on that basis if the plaintiff lived in another European Union member state, where judgments could be enforced more readily.
Marques de Abreu argued that requiring security would discriminate against her because of her nationality and would create a barrier for non-EU citizens pursuing claims arising from time spent living and working in Ireland. The judge rejected that argument, reasoning that a court could take account of the potential enforcement difficulties associated with residence outside the EU without barring such claims. The judgment also notes that she had not said an order would effectively prevent her from continuing the proceedings, and made no substantive statement about her finances.
The court reviewed earlier decisions on security for costs. It said the defendant must establish reasonable grounds for an order and that the decision requires consideration of all the circumstances. It distinguished cases involving a claim that the defendant’s alleged wrongdoing had caused the plaintiff’s inability to provide security, an appeal raising a constitutional access-to-courts issue, or a basic right such as unpaid wages. The judge said those circumstances were not present here.
The court granted the hotel’s application under Order 29, rule 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended. The judgment gives written reasons for an order the court had indicated at the end of the hearing it would make. It does not state the amount of security ordered or set out a deadline for providing it.