Judgment: 2021-05-07 · Court archive

Court of Appeal awards costs after dismissing appeal, refuses 12-month stay

The court ordered the successful plaintiff’s appeal costs and declined the defendant’s request to delay enforcement for a year, while granting a 28-day stay pending any Supreme Court leave application.

Court of Appeal · [2021] IECA 136

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Castletown Foundation Limited (Plaintiff)
  • George Magan (Defendant)
What

The court ordered the successful plaintiff’s appeal costs and declined the defendant’s request to delay enforcement for a year, while granting a 28-day stay pending any Supreme Court leave application.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 21 December 2020

    In a ruling dated 7 May 2021, Ms Justice Faherty said the foundation was entitled to its costs because it had been entirely successful in the appeal. The court had already dismissed the appeal in its principal judgment on 21 December 2020.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a ruling dated 7 May 2021, Ms Justice Faherty said the foundation was entitled to its costs because it had been entirely successful in the appeal. The court had already dismissed the appeal in its principal judgment on 21 December 2020.

The Court of Appeal has awarded costs to Castletown Foundation Limited after dismissing George Magan’s appeal, and refused his request for a 12-month stay on enforcement of the costs order.

In a ruling dated 7 May 2021, Ms Justice Faherty said the foundation was entitled to its costs because it had been entirely successful in the appeal. The court had already dismissed the appeal in its principal judgment on 21 December 2020.

Magan had asked the court to make no order as to costs, or alternatively to stay a costs award for 12 months. He said his absence from the High Court hearing was connected to his medical circumstances and that he had not communicated those circumstances quickly and clearly enough. He also said he had lacked legal representation because he could not access sufficient funds, and claimed the foundation was responsible for that position.

The foundation argued that the usual rule applied: costs should follow the event. It said it had succeeded on every ground of appeal and that the appeal had been devoid of merit.

Faherty J said the statutory costs regime entitled an entirely successful party to costs unless the court ordered otherwise. She found no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from that default. The court’s principal judgment had found no basis to set aside the High Court decision on procedural fairness or on the prospect of Magan establishing an entitlement to a new tenancy.

The judge said Magan had provided no evidence that the foundation interfered with his ability to retain lawyers. She made no finding about the foundation’s submission that Magan had frequently changed legal representation, but said his lack of representation could not be laid at the foundation’s door.

The court declined Magan’s request for a 12-month stay, finding he had not established a basis for it. It stayed execution of the costs order for 28 days to allow for any application to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. If such an application is made, the stay will continue until it is determined. If leave is granted, Magan may apply to the Supreme Court for a further stay on notice to the foundation.

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