The Court of Appeal has dismissed Christian Morris’s appeal against a High Court decision striking out his claim over costs owed to Marine Hotel (Sutton) Limited and Grand Hotel Malahide Limited. The court held that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the High Court’s order should stand.
The proceedings concerned three District Court instalment orders made in 2009 to enforce costs arising from Morris’s unsuccessful objections to the hotels’ annual licence renewals. The orders required payments to the two hotel companies. In October 2012, the District Court varied them so Morris’s combined monthly payments were €75. The judgment said the orders remained in force.
After making payments until June 2014, Morris stopped paying. He sought to prevent further enforcement and recover sums already paid, arguing that the demands were unreasonable and that the respondents’ delay barred their claims. He also disputed a €2,500 plus VAT fee in the costs bill, saying the barrister had been described as senior counsel despite being junior counsel at the relevant hearings.
The High Court struck out the proceedings in October 2016 under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and, alternatively, under its inherent jurisdiction. On appeal, Morris argued that the respondents should have delivered a defence before applying to strike out his claim and that delays prevented them from bringing the application.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It said the respondents did not have to deliver a defence before seeking to have the claim dismissed, and that the nine weeks between delivery of the statement of claim and the strike-out motion was not an inordinate delay. The court also found that Morris had accepted the validity of the costs and instalment orders, had taken part in the processes that produced them, and had not appealed the 2012 variations. It agreed that the barrister’s description did not cancel his liability for the costs.
The court concluded that the claim was an impermissible collateral attack on the costs taxation and the District Court orders. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s strike-out order in place.