Goode Concrete -v- CRH plc & Ors [2012] IEHC 116 (21 March 2012)

Goode Concrete -v- CRH plc & Ors [2012] IEHC 116 (21 March 2012)

Order 29 RSC permits the court to order security for costs against a nominal plaintiff resident within the jurisdiction where the plaintiff is insolvent and is prosecuting the action for the benefit of others. Section 390 Companies Act 1963 does not apply to unlimited companies. The defendants have shown a prima facie defence, and the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case that its inability to pay is due to the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. Security for costs is therefore appropriate, to be ordered on a phased basis.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 116
Parties
Plaintiff: Goode Concrete; Defendant: CRH plc; Defendant: Roadstone Wood Limited; Defendant: Kilsaran Concrete
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Interpretation of Order 29 Rules of the Superior Courts, Application of S.390 Companies Act 1963, Nominal Plaintiff, Access to Courts, Competition Act 2002, Articles 101 and 102 TFEU
Competition Law Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Interpretation of Order 29 Rules of the Superior Courts Application of S.390 Companies Act 1963 Nominal Plaintiff Access to Courts +2 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 5 Authorities cited 27 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

Application for Security for Costs in Plenary Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for security for costs can be made against an unlimited company resident within the jurisdiction under Order 29 RSC
  2. 2 Whether s.390 Companies Act 1963 applies to unlimited companies
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff and if so, whether security for costs can be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

Order 29 RSC permits the court to order security for costs against a nominal plaintiff resident within the jurisdiction where the plaintiff is insolvent and is prosecuting the action for the benefit of others. Section 390 Companies Act 1963 does not apply to unlimited companies. The defendants have shown a prima facie defence, and the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case that its inability to pay is due to the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. Security for costs is therefore appropriate, to be ordered on a phased basis.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part

Orders

  • Plaintiff to provide security for costs to both sets of defendants on a phased basis, initially limited to costs up to completion of pleadings and discovery; further orders to be considered after that phase.