The High Court proposed that Proton Technologies AG pay DRM Contract Administration Limited €10,000, plus any VAT allowed, for the plaintiff’s costs of two procedural motions. Either party could object to the court fixing the costs as a single sum within 14 days; if either did, the order would instead provide for the costs to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. Execution of the costs order was to be stayed pending final determination of the proceedings.
The costs judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 2 December 2021, followed an earlier ruling on the motions. That ruling set aside a default judgment against Proton Technologies AG because service of the proceedings had been irregular, while granting DRM Contract Administration Limited leave to renew its plenary summons. The costs hearing did not decide the underlying claim.
The defendant argued that each side should bear its own costs. It said the plaintiff had unreasonably opposed the set-aside motion, making what could have been a short consent motion into a full-day hearing. It also argued the plaintiff’s position was protected by permission to renew the summons and by costs awarded for two earlier applications. The defendant described its earlier failure to engage as a mistaken understanding of the Irish legal system.
The judge rejected an “one-all draw” approach based solely on each party having succeeded on one motion. He said the difficulties arose from the defendant’s decision in late November 2018 to stop engaging after initially corresponding with the plaintiff’s solicitors and attempting to enter an appearance. The defendant did not tell the plaintiff’s solicitor that it would dispute service. The court found it reasonable for the plaintiff to assume there was no service objection and to seek judgment in default of appearance.
The judge said the defendant was on actual notice of the proceedings and later successfully challenged service, but that success did not erase its earlier conduct. He found that the defendant had created confusion about service and then sought to rely on it in opposing renewal, which could have prevented the plaintiff from relying on the proceedings’ institution date for the limitation period applicable to defamation claims.
The plaintiff estimated its costs for the two motions at about €10,700 excluding VAT; the defendant estimated its own at €59,888. The court considered the proposed €10,000 gross sum proportionate. It said the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the renewal motion because it succeeded, and to the set-aside motion costs because that application would have been necessary even if the plaintiff had consented. The judge expressly made no criticism of the defendant’s current legal team.