Hidden Ireland Heritage Holidays -v- Indigo Services Ltd & ors [2005] IESC 38 (07 June 2005)

Hidden Ireland Heritage Holidays -v- Indigo Services Ltd & ors [2005] IESC 38 (07 June 2005)

The Supreme Court held that the delay of approximately one year by the second and third named defendants in seeking security for costs, combined with their conduct in the litigation, constituted special circumstances justifying refusal of the order. The High Court judge failed to consider the issue of delay, and thus the Supreme Court exercised its discretion de novo, finding that the defendants had deprived themselves of entitlement to security for costs.

Citation
[2005] IESC 38
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Hidden Ireland Heritage Holidays Limited (Trading as The Hidden Ireland Association); First Named Defendant: Indigo Services Limited; Second Named Defendant/respondent: John Colclough; Third Named Defendant/respondent: Alexandra Gardner
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order for security for costs set aside; application for security for costs dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discretion Under Section 390 Companies Act 1963, Delay in Seeking Security, Special Circumstances Exception
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Discretion Under Section 390 Companies Act 1963 Delay in Seeking Security Special Circumstances Exception

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

Parties

Hidden Ireland Heritage Holidays Limited (Trading as The Hidden Ireland Association)

Plaintiff/appellant

Indigo Services Limited

First Named Defendant

John Colclough

Second Named Defendant/respondent

Alexandra Gardner

Third Named Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in ordering the plaintiff to provide security for costs under section 390 of the Companies Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether delay and conduct of the defendants constituted special circumstances justifying refusal of security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the delay of approximately one year by the second and third named defendants in seeking security for costs, combined with their conduct in the litigation, constituted special circumstances justifying refusal of the order. The High Court judge failed to consider the issue of delay, and thus the Supreme Court exercised its discretion de novo, finding that the defendants had deprived themselves of entitlement to security for costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order for security for costs set aside; application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • Order dismissing the application for security for costs.