The High Court has ruled that ADM Londis PLC may set its monetary award against costs awarded to the defendants in proceedings against Ranzett Limited, Ray Dolan and Annaliese McConnell.
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2015, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the set-off would apply when the defendants’ costs had been taxed and ascertained. The costs had not yet been taxed, so their final value was not known.
The court said Londis had succeeded on its claim for sums due under invoices, while the defendants had substantially succeeded on their counterclaim. The result was a net award of about €97,284, plus Courts Act interest running from 3 June 2009, in Londis’s favour. The defendants received the greater part of the costs order, with seven days’ costs awarded to them. Londis was also awarded half a day’s costs, which was set against that costs order.
Londis asked the court to allow the set-off under Order 99, rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The rule permits a set-off of damages or costs between parties, notwithstanding a solicitor’s lien for costs in the case.
Mr Justice Hogan relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Larkin v Groeger* [1990] 1 I.R. 461. He said that decision supported allowing a set-off where the interests of justice required it. In this case, the monetary award and costs arose from the same proceedings, bringing the matter within the rule. He also said Londis appeared to have little prospect of recovering its award unless it could set it against the defendants’ costs, and that the defendants’ solicitor’s lien did not take priority over Londis’s entitlement to set-off.
The ruling determines how the existing monetary award and costs order are to be balanced. It does not state the final taxed amount of the defendants’ costs; the set-off is to be applied once that amount is established.