Ditt -v- Krohne [2012] IEHC 312 (20 July 2012)

Ditt -v- Krohne [2012] IEHC 312 (20 July 2012)

Because the Lugano Convention ensures effective and reciprocal enforcement of Irish judgments, including costs, in Switzerland, there is no substantial risk of non-enforcement or excessive difficulty. Therefore, it would be disproportionate and unnecessary to order security for costs against a plaintiff resident in Switzerland, and the court's discretion should be exercised to refuse the application.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 312
Parties
Plaintiff: Ralf Ditt; Defendant: Michael Krohne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Enforcement of Judgments, Discrimination Based on Nationality, Lugano Convention
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Enforcement of Judgments Discrimination Based on Nationality Lugano Convention

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralf Ditt

Plaintiff

Michael Krohne

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a plaintiff resident in Switzerland (a Lugano Convention state but not an EU member) should be ordered to provide security for costs under Order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Lugano Convention ensures effective and reciprocal enforcement of Irish judgments, including costs, in Switzerland, there is no substantial risk of non-enforcement or excessive difficulty. Therefore, it would be disproportionate and unnecessary to order security for costs against a plaintiff resident in Switzerland, and the court's discretion should be exercised to refuse the application.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused

Orders

  • Defendant's motion for security for costs is dismissed