Irish Press plc v. E.M. Warburg Pincus & Company International Ltd. [1997] IEHC 49; [1997] 2 ILRM 263 (12th March, 1997)

Irish Press plc v. E.M. Warburg Pincus & Company International Ltd. [1997] IEHC 49; [1997] 2 ILRM 263 (12th March, 1997)

On the balance of evidence, the plaintiff company is not insolvent and has sufficient resources to meet the defendants' costs in these proceedings. The court is not satisfied that there is reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful. Therefore, the application for security for costs is refused.

Citation
[1997] 2 ILRM 263
Parties
Plaintiff: Irish Press Plc; Defendants: Ingersoll Irish Publications Limited and others
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Application for Security for Costs / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 390 of the Companies Act, 1963
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Companies Act 1963 Section 390, Corporate Insolvency, Discretionary Orders, Access to Courts
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Companies Act 1963 Section 390 Corporate Insolvency Discretionary Orders Access to Courts

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

Parties

Irish Press Plc

Plaintiff

Ingersoll Irish Publications Limited and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Security for Costs / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 390 of the Companies Act, 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff company should be ordered to provide security for the defendants' costs under Section 390 of the Companies Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff company is unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances exist to refuse an order for security

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of evidence, the plaintiff company is not insolvent and has sufficient resources to meet the defendants' costs in these proceedings. The court is not satisfied that there is reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful. Therefore, the application for security for costs is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused

Orders

  • Order for security for costs refused
  • No stay on proceedings