Mavior v Zerko Ltd [2013] IESC 15 (13 March 2013)

Mavior v Zerko Ltd [2013] IESC 15 (13 March 2013)

Mavior is not a nominal plaintiff as it is the beneficial owner of the cause of action; the fact that its shareholders or creditors may benefit does not make it a nominee. Therefore, security for costs cannot be ordered against it under the current law and jurisprudence.

Citation
[2013] IESC 15
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Mavior; Defendant/appellant: Zerko Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Nominal Plaintiff Doctrine, Unlimited Companies, Jurisdiction of Courts
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Nominal Plaintiff Doctrine Unlimited Companies Jurisdiction of Courts

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mavior

Plaintiff/respondent

Zerko Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an Irish unlimited company can be ordered to provide security for costs under Order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  2. 2 Whether Mavior is a nominal plaintiff for the purposes of security for costs
  3. 3 Scope of the court's jurisdiction to order security for costs against resident plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

Mavior is not a nominal plaintiff as it is the beneficial owner of the cause of action; the fact that its shareholders or creditors may benefit does not make it a nominee. Therefore, security for costs cannot be ordered against it under the current law and jurisprudence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court refusing security for costs affirmed