West Donegal Land League Ltd -v- Udaras Na Gaeltachta & ors [2006] IESC 29 (15 May 2006)

West Donegal Land League Ltd -v- Udaras Na Gaeltachta & ors [2006] IESC 29 (15 May 2006)

The Supreme Court (majority) held that the plaintiff company fell within s.390 and was unable to pay the defendant's costs if unsuccessful. No established 'special circumstances' were proven to justify refusal of security for costs. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed, but the amount of security was limited to estimated costs of a four-day hearing. The procedural complaints did not warrant remittal for rehearing.

Citation
[2006] IESC 29
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: West Donegal Land League Limited; Defendant/respondent: Udaras Na Gaeltachta; Defendant/respondent: Joseph Hamilton Boyd; Defendant/respondent: Daniel Harley; Defendant/respondent: Togail Dhun Na nGall Teoranta; Defendant/respondent: Aerphort Idirnaisiunta Dhun Na nGall Teoranta
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (security for Costs) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed (majority).
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Companies Act 1963 S.390, Special Circumstances Exception, Commonage and Grazing Rights, Trusteeship and Beneficial Ownership
Civil Procedure Company Law Property Law Security for Costs Companies Act 1963 S.390 Special Circumstances Exception Commonage and Grazing Rights Trusteeship and Beneficial Ownership

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

West Donegal Land League Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Udaras Na Gaeltachta

Defendant/respondent

Joseph Hamilton Boyd

Defendant/respondent

Daniel Harley

Defendant/respondent

Togail Dhun Na nGall Teoranta

Defendant/respondent

Aerphort Idirnaisiunta Dhun Na nGall Teoranta

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (security for Costs) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court correctly ordered security for costs against a company limited by guarantee under s.390 Companies Act 1963
  2. 2 Whether 'special circumstances' existed to justify refusal of security for costs
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was afforded in the High Court motion hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court (majority) held that the plaintiff company fell within s.390 and was unable to pay the defendant's costs if unsuccessful. No established 'special circumstances' were proven to justify refusal of security for costs. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed, but the amount of security was limited to estimated costs of a four-day hearing. The procedural complaints did not warrant remittal for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed (majority).

Orders

  • Plaintiff to provide security for costs to second-named defendant, quantum to be assessed on basis of a four-day hearing by the Master of the High Court.
  • Future applications regarding the order to be made to the High Court.