Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd & anor -v- Ireland & anor (Approved) [2023] IECA 280 (14 November 2023)

Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd & anor -v- Ireland & anor (Approved) [2023] IECA 280 (14 November 2023)

Respondents are entitled to their costs as entirely successful parties; appellants' settlement offers and arguments do not displace the general rule. The case is not of exceptional public importance or public interest. Measuring costs is inappropriate due to lack of material and complexity. A limited stay on costs is granted pending possible Supreme Court appeal; no stay pending other proceedings. Factual errors in prior judgment are corrected as directed.

Citation
[2023] IECA 280
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd; Applicant/appellant: Piotr Skoczylas; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs application refused; respondents awarded costs of substantive appeal and motion, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
Legal Topics
Costs, Kübler Claims, Settlement Offers, Public Interest Litigation, Measuring Costs, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law European Union Law Costs Kübler Claims Settlement Offers Public Interest Litigation Measuring Costs +1 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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scotchstone Capital Fund Ltd

Applicant/appellant

Piotr Skoczylas

Applicant/appellant

Ireland

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents are entitled to costs as entirely successful parties
  2. 2 Whether settlement offers by appellants displace presumptive entitlement to costs
  3. 3 Whether costs should be measured by the court

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents are entitled to their costs as entirely successful parties; appellants' settlement offers and arguments do not displace the general rule. The case is not of exceptional public importance or public interest. Measuring costs is inappropriate due to lack of material and complexity. A limited stay on costs is granted pending possible Supreme Court appeal; no stay pending other proceedings. Factual errors in prior judgment are corrected as directed.

Court Disposition

Costs application refused; respondents awarded costs of substantive appeal and motion, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

Orders

  • Respondents awarded costs of substantive appeal and motion dated 16 March 2022, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
  • Application to measure costs refused.