Goode Concrete -v- CRH PLC & Ors [2012] IEHC 198 (15 May 2012)

Goode Concrete -v- CRH PLC & Ors [2012] IEHC 198 (15 May 2012)

Where a corporate plaintiff within the jurisdiction is admittedly insolvent, the court should apply the 'sufficient security' standard by analogy with s. 390 of the Companies Act 1963, rather than the one-third practice under Order 29, and fix security for costs on that basis for each defendant, tailored to the scope of claims and anticipated costs for the first phase of proceedings.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 198
Parties
Plaintiff: Goode Concrete; Defendant: CRH PLC; Defendant: Roadstone Wood Limited; Defendant: Kilsaran Concrete
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Competition Law Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against plaintiff
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Abuse of Dominance, Cartel Conduct, Discovery, Pleadings, Corporate Insolvency
Competition Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Abuse of Dominance Cartel Conduct Discovery Pleadings Corporate Insolvency

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goode Concrete

Plaintiff

CRH PLC

Defendant

Roadstone Wood Limited

Defendant

Kilsaran Concrete

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Law Civil Action / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an insolvent corporate plaintiff within the jurisdiction
  2. 2 The appropriate quantum and basis for fixing security for costs in phased litigation
  3. 3 Whether to apply the 'sufficient security' standard or the one-third practice under Order 29

Ratio Decidendi

Where a corporate plaintiff within the jurisdiction is admittedly insolvent, the court should apply the 'sufficient security' standard by analogy with s. 390 of the Companies Act 1963, rather than the one-third practice under Order 29, and fix security for costs on that basis for each defendant, tailored to the scope of claims and anticipated costs for the first phase of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against plaintiff

Orders

  • Plaintiff to provide security for costs to CRH defendants in the amount of €110,000
  • Plaintiff to provide security for costs to Kilsaran in the amount of €85,000