The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jean Connors’s appeal against orders requiring her to pay her brother Daniel Kinsella’s costs of a failed injunction application and directing an inquiry into damages claimed under her undertaking to the court.
The appeal concerned only the costs and damages orders made by the High Court after it refused Connors’s application for interlocutory relief. That earlier refusal and the discharge of the interim injunction were not appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the orders under challenge.
The underlying action concerns the 2013 transfer of the family home in Bray by the siblings’ late mother, Frances Kinsella, to Daniel Kinsella. Connors, acting as administrator of her mother’s estate, seeks to have the transfer set aside, alleging duress or undue influence and negligence by solicitors involved in the transaction. Those allegations remain for trial; the appeal did not decide them.
The injunction application arose from building work at the property, including construction of a shed or garage and demolition of old outbuildings. The High Court had found a fair issue to be tried in the underlying action but refused the injunction, concluding that Connors had not shown a strong case likely to succeed and that the balance of convenience favoured her brother. It found no evidence that the completed works would devalue the property and considered damages an adequate remedy.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal said the injunction motion was a discrete application whose outcome would not be affected by the eventual result of the estate’s action. The court upheld the order for costs against Connors personally, without limiting her liability to her role as administrator. It said the estate’s lack of assets did not remove her responsibility to the other party for the costs of the failed application. The court left open whether she might be entitled to reimbursement from the estate.
The court also upheld enforcement of Connors’s undertaking to pay damages if required. The High Court had adjourned the inquiry into the brother’s claimed damages to the trial, where he must provide particulars and supporting documents in advance. The appeal court rejected the argument that the inquiry should await the outcome of the underlying action or a separate motion alleging breach of the interim orders.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The court stated provisionally that Daniel Kinsella was entitled to his appeal costs, and allowed Connors ten days from electronic delivery of the judgment to seek a different costs order, which would require a further short hearing.