Greenclean Waste Management Ltd -v- Leahy p/a Maurice Leahy Wade & Company solicitors [2015] IECA 97 (08 May 2015)

Greenclean Waste Management Ltd -v- Leahy p/a Maurice Leahy Wade & Company solicitors [2015] IECA 97 (08 May 2015)

The ATE insurance policy presented by the plaintiff was too conditional, voidable for numerous reasons outside the defendant's control, and lacked evidence of the required no-win no-fee agreement. Therefore, it did not provide sufficient security to justify refusal of an order for security for costs under s. 390 of the Companies Act 1963. The trial judge erred in relying solely on the insurer's assurance regarding the prospects clause and in not considering the conditionality and enforceability of the policy as a whole.

Citation
[2015] IECA 97
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Greenclean Waste Management Limited; Defendant/appellant: Maurice Leahy practising under the style and title of Maurice Leahy Wade and Company Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Regarding Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, After the Event (ate) Insurance, Professional Negligence, Company Insolvency
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Company Law Security for Costs After the Event (ate) Insurance Professional Negligence Company Insolvency

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenclean Waste Management Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Maurice Leahy practising under the style and title of Maurice Leahy Wade and Company Solicitors

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Regarding Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existence of an ATE insurance policy is sufficient to mitigate the risk to the defendant and justify refusal of an order for security for costs under s. 390 of the Companies Act 1963
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff demonstrated an effective ATE policy in force
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had established a prima facie defence

Ratio Decidendi

The ATE insurance policy presented by the plaintiff was too conditional, voidable for numerous reasons outside the defendant's control, and lacked evidence of the required no-win no-fee agreement. Therefore, it did not provide sufficient security to justify refusal of an order for security for costs under s. 390 of the Companies Act 1963. The trial judge erred in relying solely on the insurer's assurance regarding the prospects clause and in not considering the conditionality and enforceability of the policy as a whole.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for security for costs granted in favour of the defendant/appellant