The High Court has ordered the Revenue Commissioners to pay the reasonable costs of receivers Aengus Burns and Paul McCann after refusing Revenue’s application for directions and declarations concerning a receivership loan and creditor priorities. Execution of the costs order is stayed pending the expiry of the time allowed for an appeal and, if an appeal is lodged in time, until it is determined.
In a ruling delivered on 1 April 2021, Mr Justice David Keane considered the outstanding issue of costs following an earlier judgment on 19 February 2021. That judgment had refused the relief Revenue sought under section 438 of the Companies Act 2014. The costs ruling says the earlier judgment should be read alongside it.
Revenue argued that the receivers had not succeeded on the question of whether the repayment of a receivership loan attracted statutory priority under section 617 of the 2014 Act. It sought a portion of its costs or an order that each side bear its own costs. The receivers said they had been entirely successful and should recover their costs.
The judge found that the application raised two issues: whether repayment of the receivership loan was a claim for principal or interest under the debenture, and whether the court should grant the directions Revenue sought. He concluded that the receivers succeeded on both. Although they did not establish statutory priority under section 617, the earlier judgment had found that the loan repayment had equivalent antecedent priority at common law. The judge therefore treated Revenue’s statutory point as one on which the receivers had failed, but not as a separate issue that changed the outcome of the application.
The court also rejected Revenue’s criticism of the receivers’ conduct, finding no basis to depart from the usual costs outcome. Revenue was ordered to pay the receivers’ reasonable costs, including reserved costs and the costs of submissions, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree.
Revenue also sought a stay pending appeal. The judge refused to stay the order denying Revenue’s requested relief, saying such a stay would serve no useful purpose. He considered there was an arguable appeal, but concluded that staying that refusal would not represent the least risk of injustice. He did grant a stay on execution of the costs order during the appeal period and, if an appeal was lodged in time, pending its determination.