Glynn & Anor -v- Owen & Ors [2007] IEHC 452 (21 December 2007)

Glynn & Anor -v- Owen & Ors [2007] IEHC 452 (21 December 2007)

The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and there were no grounds to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event. The plaintiffs were not entitled to an indemnity from the companies for costs, as they did not have reasonable grounds or follow the appropriate procedure for such indemnity.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 452
Parties
Plaintiff: James Glynn; Plaintiff: Kevin McCabe; Defendant: Johnathan Owen; Defendant: Allan Owen; Defendant: Stephen Leyland; Defendant: Fatstrippa Holdings Company; Defendant: Fatstrippa Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Derivative Action and Personal Claims / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Claims
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiffs as specified; no indemnity granted.
Legal Topics
Derivative Actions, Costs, Indemnity, Minority Shareholder Rights
Company Law Civil Procedure Derivative Actions Costs Indemnity Minority Shareholder Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Glynn

Plaintiff

Kevin McCabe

Plaintiff

Johnathan Owen

Defendant

Allan Owen

Defendant

Stephen Leyland

Defendant

Fatstrippa Holdings Company

Defendant

Fatstrippa Corporation Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Action and Personal Claims / Judgment on Costs Following Dismissal of Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to pursue derivative claims on behalf of companies
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs following dismissal of claims
  3. 3 Entitlement to indemnity from companies for costs incurred in failed derivative action

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and there were no grounds to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event. The plaintiffs were not entitled to an indemnity from the companies for costs, as they did not have reasonable grounds or follow the appropriate procedure for such indemnity.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; costs awarded against plaintiffs as specified; no indemnity granted.

Orders

  • Order in favour of first and second named defendants jointly for their costs of the proceedings against the plaintiffs jointly and severally up to 20th November, 2006.
  • Order in favour of each of the first and second named defendants against the plaintiffs jointly and severally for expenses incurred as lay litigants after 20th November, 2006.