The High Court refused an application by Val Timon to join Francesca De Cataldo as a co-defendant and make her personally liable for costs following the dismissal of Sundogs Rock Productions Limited’s claim against him. It ordered De Cataldo to remove specified items from Timon’s premises by 31 January 2012.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hedigan on 16 December 2011, concerns post-judgment applications arising from the court’s refusal on 21 July 2011 of the company’s claim for €75,551.05. Timon sought an order under Order 15, Rule 13 to join De Cataldo for the purpose of a personal costs order, or alternatively an order under Rule 53 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877 making her liable for the proceedings’ costs.
Timon also asked the court to require the company and/or De Cataldo to remove a long list of furnishings and other goods from his premises. The judgment records that some listed items had only been partly delivered. The inventory included rugs, sofas, lamps, mirrors, kitchen items, bedding and sculptures.
In an affidavit responding to the application, De Cataldo alleged that the judge was a friend of Timon and had decided the case in advance. Justice Hedigan rejected the allegation as untrue and said he had not met Timon before he gave evidence. He discussed the distinction between actual and apparent judicial bias and said he saw no reasonable basis for the allegation.
The judge nevertheless considered whether he should decide the costs application, given the allegation and the potentially serious financial consequences for De Cataldo. He said the most practical course was to refuse the application on the joinder and costs issues, expecting Timon to appeal. The appeal could then be heard alongside the company’s appeal in the substantive action, after the Supreme Court had decided that action.
The court refused the application insofar as it concerned joinder and personal liability for costs. It ordered De Cataldo to remove the listed items from Timon’s premises by 31 January 2012. If she did not, Timon was to remove and sell them by auction for the best price obtainable. Any balance after removal and sale costs was to be held by Timon’s solicitors pending the appeal, then applied to legal costs or returned to the company as the court might order.