The High Court has ordered a lender and a second defendant to pay the plaintiffs 30% of their party-and-party costs after finding both sides partly successful in a dispute over loan repayment, security and damages.
In a costs judgment delivered on 20 December 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts said the borrowers had secured a real benefit, including a determination of the redemption figure and an order requiring release of security. But they were not entirely successful because they failed to recover damages for a substantial loss-of-opportunity claim. The first defendant lender was also partly successful in defending the case.
The underlying trial lasted three days. The court had fixed the amount due to redeem the loan at €9,745.23, in line with the plaintiffs’ calculations, and awarded damages for excess interest arising from delay in providing partial deeds of release, as well as the cost of obtaining a PwC calculation of the indebtedness. After setting off damages, the court found no balance payable by either side. It awarded no damages for loss of opportunity or aggravated or punitive damages.
The judge assessed that 35% of the trial time was spent on or associated with the loss-of-opportunity claim. Taking that claim and the parties’ other successes into account, she awarded the plaintiffs 65% of the proceedings costs and the defendants 35%. Netting those shares left the plaintiffs entitled to recover 30% of their party-and-party trial costs, to be assessed if the parties cannot agree.
The judge declined to reduce the costs to reflect a lower-court scale. She said the case involved multiple forms of relief, including an injunction against the second defendant that was outside the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction, and she was not satisfied that all aspects could have been dealt with there. The low damages award did not reflect a cap on the claim, she said; it reflected the evidence and the circumstances in which the obligation to release security arose.
The court also awarded the plaintiffs party-and-party costs for three discovery-related motions and, against the first defendant alone, the interlocutory injunction motion. The injunction motion had been brought after the lender did not provide a redemption figure and delayed handing over partial deeds of release. The judge found the lender could have prevented the motion by confirming it would not appoint a receiver.
The judge declined to award indemnity costs for the discovery motions. She made no decision on a separate, unprogressed application to join Mr Cheng Bi personally for costs, leaving the plaintiffs free to advance it and at risk as to costs if they do. If withdrawn, no costs order is to be made on that application.