Druminiskin Developments Ltd & ors v O Gorman (Approved) [2020] IEHC 153 (27 March 2020)

Druminiskin Developments Ltd & ors v O Gorman (Approved) [2020] IEHC 153 (27 March 2020)

Security for costs should not be ordered against the first plaintiff due to special circumstances, namely excessive delay in bringing the application and the defendant's conduct, including breach of solicitor's undertakings and misleading representations, which contributed to the plaintiff's impecuniosity.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 153
Parties
Plaintiff: Druminiskin Developments Limited; Plaintiff: Matthew Farrell; Plaintiff: James Farrell; Plaintiff: Eileen Farrell; Defendant: Kevin O’Gorman
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Security for Costs Motion
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Solicitor's Undertaking, Settlement Agreement, Delay, Impecuniosity, Breach of Contract, Fraud, Fiduciary Duty
Civil Procedure Company Law Professional Negligence Security for Costs Solicitor's Undertaking Settlement Agreement Delay Impecuniosity +3 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Druminiskin Developments Limited

Plaintiff

Matthew Farrell

Plaintiff

James Farrell

Plaintiff

Eileen Farrell

Plaintiff

Kevin O’Gorman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / Ruling on Security for Costs Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the first plaintiff under s.52 Companies Act 2014 and/or Order 29 RSC
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances exist to refuse security, including delay, defendant's conduct, and causation of impecuniosity

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs should not be ordered against the first plaintiff due to special circumstances, namely excessive delay in bringing the application and the defendant's conduct, including breach of solicitor's undertakings and misleading representations, which contributed to the plaintiff's impecuniosity.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused

Orders

  • No order for security for costs against the first plaintiff
  • Proceedings to continue without stay