Mavior -v- Zerko Ltd [2012] IEHC 471 (22 November 2012)

Mavior -v- Zerko Ltd [2012] IEHC 471 (22 November 2012)

The court has no jurisdiction to order security for costs against an unlimited company resident in the jurisdiction solely on the grounds of insolvency or inability to pay, unless the plaintiff is acting as a nominal plaintiff or there is an abuse of process. Mavior is not a nominal plaintiff; it is pursuing its own cause of action. Therefore, the application for security for costs is refused.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 471
Parties
Plaintiff: Mavior; Defendant: Zerko Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Unlimited Companies, Insolvency, Nominal Plaintiff, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Company Law Security for Costs Unlimited Companies Insolvency Nominal Plaintiff Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mavior

Plaintiff

Zerko Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order security for costs against an unlimited company resident in the jurisdiction on grounds of insolvency alone
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff such that an order for security for costs may be made

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction to order security for costs against an unlimited company resident in the jurisdiction solely on the grounds of insolvency or inability to pay, unless the plaintiff is acting as a nominal plaintiff or there is an abuse of process. Mavior is not a nominal plaintiff; it is pursuing its own cause of action. Therefore, the application for security for costs is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused