Pembroke Equity Partners Ltd v Corrigan & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 142 (24 June 2022)

Pembroke Equity Partners Ltd v Corrigan & Anor (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 142 (24 June 2022)

The High Court's order awarding costs to the Defendants was within the range of reasonable orders open to the Judge, as the Defendants were entirely successful in obtaining security for costs, and no countervailing factors justified a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Citation
[2022] IECA 142
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: Pembroke Equity Partners Limited; Defendant / Respondent: Eileen Corrigan; Defendant / Respondent: James Patrick Galligan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Costs Order Following Security for Costs Motion
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs Orders, Discretion of Court, Interlocutory Applications
Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Costs Orders Discretion of Court Interlocutory Applications

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pembroke Equity Partners Limited

Plaintiff / Appellant

Eileen Corrigan

Defendant / Respondent

James Patrick Galligan

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Costs Order Following Security for Costs Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding costs of a security for costs motion to the Defendants/Respondents
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants/Respondents were 'entirely successful' in the motion for security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99 RSC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's order awarding costs to the Defendants was within the range of reasonable orders open to the Judge, as the Defendants were entirely successful in obtaining security for costs, and no countervailing factors justified a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs order of the High Court affirmed; Defendants/Respondents awarded costs of the motion for security for costs, subject to stay as ordered by the High Court