Smith v Cunningham (Approved) [2023] IESC 33 (30 November 2023)

Smith v Cunningham (Approved) [2023] IESC 33 (30 November 2023)

The Court held that the normal rule that costs follow the event applies, and the plaintiff failed to establish exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule. However, given the clarification of law achieved and the benefit to the profession, the Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal, but ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the Supreme Court appeal.

Citation
[2023] IESC 33
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Mark Smith; Defendant/respondent: Mark Cunningham; Defendant/respondent: Kevin Sorohan; Defendant/respondent: Ann-Marie Sorohan; Defendant/respondent: Paul Kelly practicing under the style and title of Paul Kelly & Company, Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs Ruling) / Supreme Court Post Judgment (costs)
Outcome
Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the Supreme Court appeal only; no order as to costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs, Statute of Limitations, Solicitor's Negligence, Economic Loss
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Statute of Limitations Solicitor's Negligence Economic Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Smith

Plaintiff/appellant

Mark Cunningham

Defendant/respondent

Kevin Sorohan

Defendant/respondent

Ann-Marie Sorohan

Defendant/respondent

Paul Kelly practicing under the style and title of Paul Kelly & Company, Solicitors

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs Ruling) / Supreme Court Post Judgment (costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unsuccessful plaintiff should be ordered to pay the successful defendant's costs in circumstances where the case clarified the law on limitation periods for solicitor negligence claims.
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances exist to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the normal rule that costs follow the event applies, and the plaintiff failed to establish exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule. However, given the clarification of law achieved and the benefit to the profession, the Court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal, but ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the Supreme Court appeal.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the Supreme Court appeal only; no order as to costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • No order as to costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
  • Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the Supreme Court appeal.