Kirby v Kane & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 679 (18 December 2020)

Kirby v Kane & Ors (Approved) [2020] IEHC 679 (18 December 2020)

The application to set aside the order for costs was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that he was taken by surprise, failed to act promptly, and acquiesced in the order for nineteen months. The evidence did not establish a real prospect of success on rehearing, and the public interest in finality of litigation outweighed any justification for reopening the matter.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 679
Parties
Plaintiff: Myles Kirby; First Defendant: John Alex Kane; Second Defendant: Seamus Kane; Third Defendant / Applicant: Jerome Kane
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion to Set Aside Order for Costs (in Absentia) / High Court Post Judgment Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgments/orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Costs Orders, Service of Process, Finality of Litigation
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgments/orders Inherent Jurisdiction Costs Orders Service of Process Finality of Litigation

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myles Kirby

Plaintiff

John Alex Kane

First Defendant

Seamus Kane

Second Defendant

Jerome Kane

Third Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion to Set Aside Order for Costs (in Absentia) / High Court Post Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order for costs made in absentia against the third defendant, Jerome Kane
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was taken by surprise and deprived of an opportunity to be heard
  3. 3 Whether delay in bringing the application precludes relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the order for costs was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that he was taken by surprise, failed to act promptly, and acquiesced in the order for nineteen months. The evidence did not establish a real prospect of success on rehearing, and the public interest in finality of litigation outweighed any justification for reopening the matter.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Motion to set aside order made in absentia refused
  • Applicant (Jerome Kane) to pay the costs of the motion and order to the plaintiff (Myles Kirby) when adjudicated, unless written submissions on costs are filed within 21 days