Coolbrook Developments Ltd. v Lington Development Ltd & anor [2018] IEHC 634 (16 November 2018)

Coolbrook Developments Ltd. v Lington Development Ltd & anor [2018] IEHC 634 (16 November 2018)

The court found that Lington and DTI discharged the onus of establishing reason to believe Coolbrook would be unable to pay their costs if unsuccessful, based on Coolbrook's accounts, substantial liabilities, charges, and conditional access to rental income. The court ordered Coolbrook to provide security for costs, determining the quantum based on legal costs accountants' estimates, rejecting the 'one third rule' as binding.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 634
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Coolbrook Developments Limited; Defendant/respondent: Lington Development Limited; Defendant/respondent: Davy Target Investments plc
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial High Court Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Defendants' Applications for Security for Costs Under S.52 Companies Act 2014
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against plaintiff
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Corporate Plaintiff, Ability to Pay Costs, Owners' Agreement, Breach of Contract, Conspiracy, Breach of Confidence
Company Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Corporate Plaintiff Ability to Pay Costs Owners' Agreement Breach of Contract Conspiracy +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coolbrook Developments Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Lington Development Limited

Defendant/respondent

Davy Target Investments plc

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial High Court Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Defendants' Applications for Security for Costs Under S.52 Companies Act 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants have established reason to believe plaintiff will be unable to pay costs if unsuccessful
  2. 2 Appropriate amount of security for costs to be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Lington and DTI discharged the onus of establishing reason to believe Coolbrook would be unable to pay their costs if unsuccessful, based on Coolbrook's accounts, substantial liabilities, charges, and conditional access to rental income. The court ordered Coolbrook to provide security for costs, determining the quantum based on legal costs accountants' estimates, rejecting the 'one third rule' as binding.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against plaintiff

Orders

  • Coolbrook Developments Limited to provide security for costs to Lington Development Limited and Davy Target Investments plc in amounts determined by the court based on legal costs accountants' estimates.
  • Proceedings stayed until security is provided.