Flannery & Anor -v- Walters & Ors [2015] IECA 147 (08 July 2015)

Flannery & Anor -v- Walters & Ors [2015] IECA 147 (08 July 2015)

The High Court erred by focusing solely on Lexington's net asset position and failing to consider whether, on all the evidence, there was reason to believe Lexington would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if successful. The financial statements raised significant concerns about Lexington's ability to pay, and in the absence of explanation, the risk was sufficient to justify security for costs. CTL, as counterclaim plaintiff, was properly ordered to provide security for costs because its counterclaim went beyond a mere defence and its financial position indicated inability to pay. The trial judge had discretion to order the full amount of security and was not required to order phased...

Citation
[2015] IECA 147
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: James Patrick Flannery; Plaintiff/respondent: Lexington Services Limited; Defendant/appellant: Mortimer John Walters; Defendant/appellant: Brian Connell; Defendant/appellant: Activity Monitoring Solutions; Defendant/appellant: Catharsis Technologies Limited; Defendant/appellant: Ashley Trust Limited; Defendant/appellant: Ashley Nominees Limited; Counterclaim Plaintiff/appellant: Catharsis Technologies Limited; Counterclaim Defendant/respondent: James Patrick Flannery; Counterclaim Defendant/respondent: Bruce Basheer; Counterclaim Defendant/respondent: Seaf - 2 Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders Regarding Security for Costs
Outcome
Defendants' appeal allowed; order for security for costs against plaintiffs. CTL's appeal dismissed; order for security for costs against CTL affirmed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Companies Act 1963 S.390, Order 29 Rules of the Superior Courts, Counterclaims, Corporate Solvency, Access to Courts
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Companies Act 1963 S.390 Order 29 Rules of the Superior Courts Counterclaims Corporate Solvency Access to 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Patrick Flannery

Plaintiff/respondent

Lexington Services Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Mortimer John Walters

Defendant/appellant

Brian Connell

Defendant/appellant

Activity Monitoring Solutions

Defendant/appellant

Catharsis Technologies Limited

Defendant/appellant

Ashley Trust Limited

Defendant/appellant

Ashley Nominees Limited

Defendant/appellant

Catharsis Technologies Limited

Counterclaim Plaintiff/appellant

James Patrick Flannery

Counterclaim Defendant/respondent

Bruce Basheer

Counterclaim Defendant/respondent

Seaf - 2 Limited

Counterclaim Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders Regarding Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing security for costs against the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct in ordering security for costs against the counterclaim plaintiff (CTL) and in fixing the amount and refusing phased security.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred by focusing solely on Lexington's net asset position and failing to consider whether, on all the evidence, there was reason to believe Lexington would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if successful. The financial statements raised significant concerns about Lexington's ability to pay, and in the absence of explanation, the risk was sufficient to justify security for costs. CTL, as counterclaim plaintiff, was properly ordered to provide security for costs because its counterclaim went beyond a mere defence and its financial position indicated inability to pay. The trial judge had discretion to order the full amount of security and was not required to order phased...

Court Disposition

Defendants' appeal allowed; order for security for costs against plaintiffs. CTL's appeal dismissed; order for security for costs against CTL affirmed.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to provide security for costs; amount to be determined or remitted to High Court if not agreed.
  • Order for security for costs against CTL affirmed; amount fixed at €134,406.