ABM Construction -v- Habbingley Ltd [2012] IEHC 61 (15 February 2012)

ABM Construction -v- Habbingley Ltd [2012] IEHC 61 (15 February 2012)

The court has no jurisdiction to order security for costs against an unlimited company under s.390 of the Companies Act 1963, as it applies only to limited companies. Order 29 does not apply because the claimant is resident within the jurisdiction. The court has no inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs in these circumstances, as such jurisdiction is excluded where statute or rules have expressly provided otherwise.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 61
Parties
Claimant: ABM Construction; Respondent: Habbingley Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs in Arbitration Context / High Court Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Jurisdiction Over Unlimited Companies, Interpretation of Order 29, Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
Civil Procedure Arbitration Company Law Security for Costs Jurisdiction Over Unlimited Companies Interpretation of Order 29 Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court

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

Parties

ABM Construction

Claimant

Habbingley Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs in Arbitration Context / High Court Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order security for costs against an unlimited company registered in Ireland
  2. 2 Whether Order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts applies to unlimited companies
  3. 3 Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs against an unlimited company

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction to order security for costs against an unlimited company under s.390 of the Companies Act 1963, as it applies only to limited companies. Order 29 does not apply because the claimant is resident within the jurisdiction. The court has no inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs in these circumstances, as such jurisdiction is excluded where statute or rules have expressly provided otherwise.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the respondent's application for security for costs