Rayan Restaurant Ltd -v- Kean p/a Kean Solicitors & Anor [2012] IEHC 29 (17 January 2012)

Rayan Restaurant Ltd -v- Kean p/a Kean Solicitors & Anor [2012] IEHC 29 (17 January 2012)

The plaintiff's claim is not obviously vexatious or frivolous, but the company is unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful and has failed to provide adequate financial information or documentation to resist an order for security for costs. The proceedings risk re-litigating matters already determined, and the pleadings do not clearly establish a claim for relief against forfeiture. The court grants the defendants' application for security for costs and stays the proceedings until such security is provided.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 29
Parties
Plaintiff: Rayan Restaurant Limited; First Defendant: Gerald Kean practising as Kean Solicitors; Second Defendant: Francis McGagh
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 January 2012
Procedural Posture
High Court Plenary Action / Ruling on Motions to Strike Out, for Security for Costs, and for Consolidation
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed pending provision of security; strike out application not granted at this stage.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Security for Costs, Breach of Contract, Negligence of Solicitors and Barristers, Forfeiture of Lease, Relief Against Forfeiture, Collateral Attack on Judgments, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Contract Law Professional Negligence Landlord and Tenant Law Strike Out Applications Security for Costs Breach of Contract Negligence of Solicitors and Barristers +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rayan Restaurant Limited

Plaintiff

Gerald Kean practising as Kean Solicitors

First Defendant

Francis McGagh

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Plenary Action / Ruling on Motions to Strike Out, for Security for Costs, and for Consolidation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and/or as frivolous or vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to security for costs under s. 390 Companies Act 1963
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constitute an impermissible collateral attack on previous court decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim is not obviously vexatious or frivolous, but the company is unable to pay the defendants' costs if unsuccessful and has failed to provide adequate financial information or documentation to resist an order for security for costs. The proceedings risk re-litigating matters already determined, and the pleadings do not clearly establish a claim for relief against forfeiture. The court grants the defendants' application for security for costs and stays the proceedings until such security is provided.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed pending provision of security; strike out application not granted at this stage.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to provide security for costs in accordance with s. 390 Companies Act 1963.
  • Proceedings stayed until security is provided.