Flannery & anor -v- Walter and ors [2014] IEHC 373 (22 July 2014)

Flannery & anor -v- Walter and ors [2014] IEHC 373 (22 July 2014)

Security for costs refused against plaintiffs as Lexington Services Limited demonstrated solvency and ability to meet costs; security for costs ordered against counterclaim plaintiff Catharsis Technologies Limited as credible evidence showed inability to pay costs if unsuccessful and counterclaim was sufficiently distinct from main claim.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 373
Parties
Plaintiff: James Patrick Flannery; Plaintiff: Lexington Services Limited; Defendant: Mortimer John Walters; Defendant: Brian Connell; Defendant: Activity Monitoring Solutions Limited; Defendant: Catharsis Technologies Limited; Defendant: Ashley Trust Limited; Defendant: Ashley Nominees Limited; Counterclaim Plaintiff: Catharsis Technologies Limited; Counterclaim Defendant: James Patrick Flannery; Counterclaim Defendant: Bruce Basheer; Counterclaim Defendant: SEAF-2 Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings With Counterclaim / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Defendants' application for security for costs against plaintiffs refused; counterclaim defendants' application for security for costs against counterclaim plaintiff granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Corporate Solvency, Counterclaims, Jurisdictional Issues
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Corporate Solvency Counterclaims Jurisdictional Issues

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Patrick Flannery

Plaintiff

Lexington Services Limited

Plaintiff

Mortimer John Walters

Defendant

Brian Connell

Defendant

Activity Monitoring Solutions Limited

Defendant

Catharsis Technologies Limited

Defendant

Ashley Trust Limited

Defendant

Ashley Nominees Limited

Defendant

Catharsis Technologies Limited

Counterclaim Plaintiff

James Patrick Flannery

Counterclaim Defendant

Bruce Basheer

Counterclaim Defendant

SEAF-2 Limited

Counterclaim Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings With Counterclaim / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against plaintiffs and counterclaim plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether corporate plaintiffs are able to meet potential costs orders
  3. 3 Whether counterclaim is sufficiently distinct to warrant security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs refused against plaintiffs as Lexington Services Limited demonstrated solvency and ability to meet costs; security for costs ordered against counterclaim plaintiff Catharsis Technologies Limited as credible evidence showed inability to pay costs if unsuccessful and counterclaim was sufficiently distinct from main claim.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for security for costs against plaintiffs refused; counterclaim defendants' application for security for costs against counterclaim plaintiff granted.

Orders

  • Application for security for costs against James Patrick Flannery and Lexington Services Limited refused.
  • Application for security for costs against Catharsis Technologies Limited (counterclaim plaintiff) granted; amount to be determined.