Pepper Finance Corporation v Cannon & anor (Unapproved) (Rev 1) [2021] IESC 2 (26 January 2021)

Pepper Finance Corporation v Cannon & anor (Unapproved) (Rev 1) [2021] IESC 2 (26 January 2021)

The appellants failed in their appeal despite the High Court's error in applying an overly-rigid test, as their delay in seeking an extension of time was not justified. Therefore, costs should follow the event and be awarded to the respondent. No costs order should be made against the Attorney General, who participated as amicus curiae and did not cause additional expense.

Citation
[2021] IESC 2
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Designated Activity Company; Defendant/appellant: Brian Cannon; Defendant/appellant: Christina Cannon; Amicus Curiae: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Ruling on Costs
Outcome
costs awarded to respondent; no order as to costs against Attorney General
Legal Topics
Costs, Extension of Time to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Unfair Contract Terms
Civil Procedure Costs Extension of Time to Appeal Jurisdiction Unfair Contract Terms

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Designated Activity Company

Plaintiff/respondent

Brian Cannon

Defendant/appellant

Christina Cannon

Defendant/appellant

Attorney General

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Ruling on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to the appellants or respondent following the appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Attorney General should be liable for any costs
  3. 3 Whether the High Court applied the correct test for extension of time to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed in their appeal despite the High Court's error in applying an overly-rigid test, as their delay in seeking an extension of time was not justified. Therefore, costs should follow the event and be awarded to the respondent. No costs order should be made against the Attorney General, who participated as amicus curiae and did not cause additional expense.

Court Disposition

costs awarded to respondent; no order as to costs against Attorney General

Orders

  • No order for costs against the Attorney General.
  • Costs to follow the event; respondent awarded costs.