The High Court has ordered Mary Breidegam to pay Daniel J. Reilly’s reasonable costs of an application that transferred her proceedings to the Circuit Court. Enforcement of the costs order is stayed until the proceedings are resolved.
In a judgment delivered on 27 May 2020, Ms Justice Power ruled on costs following an earlier decision allowing Mr Reilly’s application to remit the proceedings. That application was heard on 5 February 2020, and the court delivered its decision on 7 April 2020, directing remittal under section 25 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, as amended.
Mr Reilly’s solicitors sought agreement on the order and costs after the April decision but received no reply, according to the judgment. They submitted that costs should follow the event because he had succeeded, and that he should also recover the reasonable costs of preparing written submissions on costs. He did not oppose a stay on enforcement pending the outcome of the proceedings.
Ms Breidegam’s solicitors accepted that costs ordinarily follow the event but argued they should be reserved because the Circuit Court might award damages exceeding €75,000. Alternatively, they sought a stay on enforcement of any costs order in Mr Reilly’s favour.
Justice Power found that it was possible to decide liability for costs of the remittal application, which had been appropriately brought and was successful. She said the possibility of damages above the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction did not amount to special or unusual circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule. Referring to her April judgment, she said that even taking Ms Breidegam’s claim at its highest, she could not reasonably contemplate recovering damages beyond that jurisdiction.
The court ordered Mr Reilly’s reasonable costs of the remittal application and the written submissions on costs, with the amount to be assessed if the parties cannot agree. It also stayed execution of the costs order pending resolution of the proceedings. The judgment determines costs arising from the remittal application; it does not decide the underlying action.