Framus Ltd. v. Amantiss Enterprises Ltd. [2002] IEHC 113 (10 December 2002)

Framus Ltd. v. Amantiss Enterprises Ltd. [2002] IEHC 113 (10 December 2002)

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that their impecuniosity was caused solely or substantially by the defendants' alleged anti-competitive conduct. The court found that the burden and cost of discovery justified an order for security for the costs of discovery, and that such an order would not bar...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] IEHC 113
Parties
Plaintiff: Framus Limited; Plaintiff: Amantiss Enterprises Limited (in voluntary liquidation); Plaintiff: Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation); Defendant: C. R. H., PLC; Defendant: Irish Cement Limited; Defendant: Roadstone Provinces Limited; Defendant: Roadstone Dublin Limited; Defendant: Tradburn Limited; Defendant: Readymix PLC; Defendant: Kilsaran Concrete Products Limited; Defendant: C. P. I., Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs of Discovery
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Discovery, Security for Costs, Abuse of Dominant Position, Cartel Allegations, Access to Court
Civil Procedure Competition Law Company Law Discovery Security for Costs Abuse of Dominant Position Cartel Allegations Access to Court

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Framus Limited

Plaintiff

Amantiss Enterprises Limited (in voluntary liquidation)

Plaintiff

Wilbury Limited (in voluntary liquidation)

Plaintiff

C. R. H., PLC

Defendant

Irish Cement Limited

Defendant

Roadstone Provinces Limited

Defendant

Roadstone Dublin Limited

Defendant

Tradburn Limited

Defendant

Readymix PLC

Defendant

Kilsaran Concrete Products Limited

Defendant

C. P. I., Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs of Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be required to provide security for the costs of discovery ordered against the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' alleged impecuniosity was caused by the defendants' alleged anti-competitive conduct, thereby excusing them from providing security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that their impecuniosity was caused solely or substantially by the defendants' alleged anti-competitive conduct. The court found that the burden and cost of discovery justified an order for security for the costs of discovery, and that such an order would not bar or seriously undermine the plaintiffs' claim. The court exercised its discretion to require security for the costs of discovery in the amount of €77,000 as a condition for the defendants to make discovery on oath.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Order that the C. R. H. Companies make discovery on oath of specified documents is conditional upon the plaintiffs providing security in the sum of €77,000 for the costs of that discovery.