Judgment: 2022-11-02 · Court archive

High Court awards costs after allowing appeal over time-barred claim

A High Court costs ruling followed an earlier decision that the plaintiff’s claim was not statute barred. The defendant must pay her costs in the Circuit Court and High Court, subject to agreement or adjudication.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 603

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Mark Heslin (Judge)
What

A High Court costs ruling followed an earlier decision that the plaintiff’s claim was not statute barred. The defendant must pay her costs in the Circuit Court and High Court, subject to agreement or adjudication.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 4 December 2013

    The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s solicitor had failed to respond to the insurer’s invitations to discuss settlement, and that the claim was brought more than two years after an accident on 4 December 2013. The judge acknowledged that the solicitor had been criticised for not responding, but said this did not cause the appeal costs. The insurer had not set a response deadline or indicated that its position would change if there was no reply, the judge said.

  • 19 December 2020; 28 June 2022

    The ruling concerns costs arising from the High Court’s earlier judgment of 28 June 2022. That judgment allowed the plaintiff’s appeal against a Circuit Court order dated 19 December 2020, which had dismissed her claim as statute barred. The High Court determined that the claim was not statute barred because it would be unconscionable for the defendant to rely on the limitation period in the circumstances found by the court.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a costs ruling delivered on 2 November 2022, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the plaintiff was entirely successful on the appeal and preliminary point of law. The court rejected the defendant’s request for no order as to costs, finding no fact-based reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The High Court has ordered Campbell Catering Limited, trading as Aramark Ireland, to pay the plaintiff’s costs after she succeeded in an appeal over whether her claim was statute barred.

In a costs ruling delivered on 2 November 2022, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the plaintiff was entirely successful on the appeal and preliminary point of law. The court rejected the defendant’s request for no order as to costs, finding no fact-based reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The ruling concerns costs arising from the High Court’s earlier judgment of 28 June 2022. That judgment allowed the plaintiff’s appeal against a Circuit Court order dated 19 December 2020, which had dismissed her claim as statute barred. The High Court determined that the claim was not statute barred because it would be unconscionable for the defendant to rely on the limitation period in the circumstances found by the court.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s solicitor had failed to respond to the insurer’s invitations to discuss settlement, and that the claim was brought more than two years after an accident on 4 December 2013. The judge acknowledged that the solicitor had been criticised for not responding, but said this did not cause the appeal costs. The insurer had not set a response deadline or indicated that its position would change if there was no reply, the judge said.

The judge said the costs arose from the defendant’s decision to plead that the claim was time-barred, despite the insurer’s earlier communications and the plaintiff’s solicitor’s stated position that the defendant could be prevented from relying on the limitation period. The defendant chose to contest the appeal after receiving the plaintiff’s affidavits, the ruling states.

The court ordered that the plaintiff receive her costs in both the Circuit Court and High Court. The High Court costs are to include a certificate for Senior Counsel and written submissions, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. The ruling also records that the earlier Circuit Court costs order was vacated and replaced.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review