Judgment: 2022-03-24 · Court archive

Court of Appeal disallows solicitor’s costs after dismissing property injunction appeal

The court declined to make the personal costs order sought by the defendants, but ruled that the solicitor could not recover any costs from his client and must reimburse payments on account.

The Court of Appeal · [2022] IECA 70

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Philip Ward (Plaintiff)
  • Tower Trade Finance (Ireland)
  • Aengus Burns (Defendant)
  • Michael Ward
What

The court declined to make the personal costs order sought by the defendants, but ruled that the solicitor could not recover any costs from his client and must reimburse payments on account.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Ward later sought an injunction to stop the sale, arguing that his consent to the charge had been obtained through misrepresentation and breach of contract. The High Court refused the injunction, finding the claim unstateable and below the threshold of raising a fair issue to be tried. A further injunction application pending appeal was also refused by a directions judge. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ward’s appeal.

The Court of Appeal has ordered solicitor Geoffrey Nwadike to forgo all costs for representing Philip Ward in a failed appeal over an attempted sale of Ward’s lands. Any payments Ward made on account must be reimbursed. The court declined the defendants’ request to make Nwadike personally liable for their appeal costs.

The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 24 March 2022 with the agreement of Whelan and Haughton JJ, dealt only with costs. The substantive appeal had been dismissed on 13 January 2022. The underlying action has yet to go to trial.

The dispute arose after Ward’s son, Michael Ward, defaulted on a settlement with Tower Trade Finance (Ireland) Ltd. Philip Ward had provided a charge over lands he owned and a guarantee to secure his son’s obligations. After a further default, Tower appointed Aengus Burns as receiver over the lands. An auction in December 2020 was unsuccessful, and a second was scheduled for February 2021.

Ward later sought an injunction to stop the sale, arguing that his consent to the charge had been obtained through misrepresentation and breach of contract. The High Court refused the injunction, finding the claim unstateable and below the threshold of raising a fair issue to be tried. A further injunction application pending appeal was also refused by a directions judge. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ward’s appeal.

The costs ruling considered the defendants’ application for a wasted costs order against Nwadike. Noonan J said that after the High Court and directions judge had rejected the arguments, continuing the appeal was a complete and deliberate waste of court resources, and at least grossly negligent. The court concluded that it should mark its disapproval of how the appeal was initiated and pursued.

However, the court considered it disproportionate to require Nwadike to personally pay the defendants’ costs of the appeal, noting his submission that doing so could end his practice. Instead, it disallowed his costs as between him and Ward, including payments already made on account, which must be repaid. The defendants were awarded their costs of the appeal. There was no order as to costs of the wasted costs application, and Nwadike must bear his own costs for that application.

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