The Court of Appeal has ordered Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC to pay the costs of two successful appeals by people described in the proceedings as unknown occupants of properties in Dublin 7 and Fairview, Dublin 3. It also refused Pepper’s request to stay execution of the costs order.
The costs judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Máire Whelan on 24 October 2022, followed the court’s 28 July 2022 decision setting aside High Court attachment orders made against the appellants. The Court of Appeal had concluded that the orders were not validly granted. The costs judgment concerns those appeals and the attachment and committal motions; it does not decide the underlying substantive proceedings, which could proceed to a plenary hearing.
Pepper argued that costs should be dealt with in the cause or reserved until the substantive proceedings concluded. It said the appeals had turned primarily on the appellants’ alleged lack of awareness or understanding of earlier court orders, an issue it said had not been fully tested. Alternatively, Pepper sought a stay on adjudication and execution of any costs order pending the substantive proceedings.
The appellants opposed that application. Justice Whelan found they had been entirely successful in the appeals and that the appeals’ outcome was a clear event for costs purposes. She rejected Pepper’s characterisation of the legal basis for the earlier decision as unduly selective and erroneous. She said the applications sought to invoke the High Court’s coercive powers against individuals, potentially affecting their liberty, and that the orders had not been properly made.
The court awarded the appellants their costs, to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. The order covers the costs of and incidental to the appeals, their costs of the High Court motions, and costs arising from submissions and arguments on the costs application. It declined to reserve those costs or make them costs in the cause.
Justice Whelan also refused a stay on execution. She found no basis for one, citing the personal liberty interests involved and concerns about delay in advancing the proceedings. The court noted that the issues in the appeals were distinct from any substantive issues that might be decided at a later hearing. Justices Collins and Pilkington agreed with the decision.