Connors v Kinsella & Ors (Approved) [2022] IECA 167 (25 July 2022)

Connors v Kinsella & Ors (Approved) [2022] IECA 167 (25 July 2022)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to treat the interlocutory application as a discrete, hostile inter partes matter to which the ordinary rule as to costs applied, and to order costs against the plaintiff personally. The court further held that the order for an inquiry as to damages on foot of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] IECA 167
Parties
Plaintiff: Jean Connors; First Defendant: Daniel Kinsella; Second Defendant: David Tarrant; Third Defendant: Andrew Tarrant
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Costs and Inquiry as to Damages Following Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Interlocutory Injunctions, Undue Influence, Duress, Administration of Estates
Civil Procedure Succession Law Equity Costs Interlocutory Injunctions Undue Influence Duress Administration of Estates

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Connors

Plaintiff

Daniel Kinsella

First Defendant

David Tarrant

Second Defendant

Andrew Tarrant

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Costs and Inquiry as to Damages Following Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding costs of the interlocutory application against the plaintiff personally
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were properly characterised as hostile inter partes litigation
  3. 3 Whether the High Court correctly ordered an inquiry as to damages on foot of the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct to treat the interlocutory application as a discrete, hostile inter partes matter to which the ordinary rule as to costs applied, and to order costs against the plaintiff personally. The court further held that the order for an inquiry as to damages on foot of the plaintiff's undertaking was appropriate, as the interim injunction was granted on that basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court awarding costs of the interlocutory application against the plaintiff personally affirmed
  • Order for inquiry as to damages on foot of the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages affirmed; inquiry adjourned to trial