The Court of Appeal has ordered Neil Maloney to pay Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC’s costs of his unsuccessful application to speak for his father, Oliver Moloney, in an appeal. The costs include the company’s expense of preparing its written submission on costs and are to be adjudicated by a legal costs adjudicator if the parties cannot agree the amount.
The application was refused in a judgment delivered on 14 December 2022. The court said the evidence did not show circumstances that engaged the jurisdiction Mr Maloney relied on. The January ruling dealt only with the costs of that motion.
After the December judgment, the court invited Mr Maloney to file a short submission if he sought a different costs order. It received his submission by email attachment on 6 January 2023 and a response for Pepper Finance on 18 January. The court decided the written submissions were sufficient and that no further oral hearing was needed.
Mr Maloney argued that the parties had agreed in October 2022 that the motion’s costs would be dealt with alongside the overall costs of the appeal. The court said the company and its legal advisers denied being party to or witnessing any such agreement, and that no evidence had been provided to support the allegation.
The court said that on 21 October 2022, High Court judge Costello J. adjourned the motion to 8 November and reserved any costs arising from the October return date. That did not determine the costs of the motion later heard by the Court of Appeal. The court also concluded it was appropriate to decide those costs at this stage, rather than await the appeal.
Mr Maloney also relied on an indemnity clause in a power of attorney from his father. The court said that document could not give him a right to address the court or determine whether he should pay costs in these proceedings. Any claim he might have under the indemnity was a matter between him and his father.
Applying the rules governing costs, the court said Pepper Finance had been entirely successful in the motion and identified no reason to depart from the usual approach that costs follow the event. The ruling does not determine the amount payable, which remains subject to agreement or adjudication.