Protege International Group & anor v Irish Distillers Ltd (Approved) [2021] IESC 16 (22 March 2021)

Protege International Group & anor v Irish Distillers Ltd (Approved) [2021] IESC 16 (22 March 2021)

Protégé and Avalon failed to provide sufficient, credible evidence that their inability to pay costs was caused by the alleged wrongdoing of Irish Distillers. The evidence presented was speculative and lacking in detail, particularly regarding financial losses and causation. There was also no evidence that the proceedings would be stifled by the order for security. The Irish security for costs regime, as applied, did not breach EU law requirements for effective judicial protection. Therefore, the order for security for costs was upheld.

Citation
[2021] IESC 16
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Protégé International Group (Cyprus) Limited; Plaintiff/appellant: Avalon International Management Inc.; Defendant/respondent: Irish Distillers Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Regarding Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order for security for costs upheld.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Abuse of Dominant Position, Effective Remedy Under EU Law, Impecunious Corporate Plaintiffs
Civil Procedure Competition Law European Union Law Security for Costs Abuse of Dominant Position Effective Remedy Under EU Law Impecunious Corporate Plaintiffs

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

Parties

Protégé International Group (Cyprus) Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Avalon International Management Inc.

Plaintiff/appellant

Irish Distillers Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Regarding Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs established special circumstances to avoid an order for security for costs, specifically that their impecuniosity was due to the alleged wrongdoing of the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the public interest or EU law required a different approach to security for costs in this case

Ratio Decidendi

Protégé and Avalon failed to provide sufficient, credible evidence that their inability to pay costs was caused by the alleged wrongdoing of Irish Distillers. The evidence presented was speculative and lacking in detail, particularly regarding financial losses and causation. There was also no evidence that the proceedings would be stifled by the order for security. The Irish security for costs regime, as applied, did not breach EU law requirements for effective judicial protection. Therefore, the order for security for costs was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order for security for costs upheld.

Orders

  • Security for costs in the sum of €1 million to be provided by Protégé and Avalon; proceedings stayed pending provision of security.