Ryconlou Ltd v Conlon (Approved) [2026] IEHC 152 (10 March 2026)

Ryconlou Ltd v Conlon (Approved) [2026] IEHC 152 (10 March 2026)

The defendant failed to establish, on the basis of all material evidence, that there was reason to believe the plaintiff company will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if unsuccessful; the evidence did not rise above a mere risk to an appreciable or weighty risk as required by law.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 152
Parties
Plaintiff: Ryconlou Limited; Defendant: Thomas Conlon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (security for Costs) / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; application for security for costs refused.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Ability to Pay Costs, Landlord and Tenant (amendment) Act 1980, Companies Act 2014 S.52
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Company Law Security for Costs Ability to Pay Costs Landlord and Tenant (amendment) Act 1980 Companies Act 2014 S.52

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryconlou Limited

Plaintiff

Thomas Conlon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (security for Costs) / High Court Appeal From Circuit Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff company should be required to provide security for costs under section 52 of the Companies Act 2014
  2. 2 Whether there is reason to believe the plaintiff will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if unsuccessful

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish, on the basis of all material evidence, that there was reason to believe the plaintiff company will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if unsuccessful; the evidence did not rise above a mere risk to an appreciable or weighty risk as required by law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; application for security for costs refused.

Orders

  • Defendant's application for security for costs refused.
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs of the application on appeal and before the Circuit Court, with a stay pending determination of the substantive proceedings.