Hurley & Ors v Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC (Approved) [2024] IECA 177 (05 July 2024)

Hurley & Ors v Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) DAC (Approved) [2024] IECA 177 (05 July 2024)

The court held that none of the appellants' arguments justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event; the proceedings, though bona fide and raising a serious issue, did not warrant excusing the appellants from liability for costs. The respondent is entitled to costs as proposed in paragraph 76 of the original judgment.

Citation
[2024] IECA 177
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Donal Hurley; Plaintiff/appellant: Shane Mooney; Plaintiff/appellant: Barbara Mooney (nee O'Connor); Plaintiff/appellant: Simon Kelleher; Defendant/respondent: Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Designated Activity Company
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Ruling Post Appeal Dismissal
Outcome
Costs awarded to respondent as per paragraph 76 of the original judgment.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Costs, Consumer Credit, Housing Loans
Civil Procedure Consumer Law Banking Law Statutory Interpretation Costs Consumer Credit Housing Loans

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donal Hurley

Plaintiff/appellant

Shane Mooney

Plaintiff/appellant

Barbara Mooney (nee O'Connor)

Plaintiff/appellant

Simon Kelleher

Plaintiff/appellant

Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) Designated Activity Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Ruling Post Appeal Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loans advanced by the respondent to the appellants were 'housing loans' under section 2 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and thus exempt from section 30(2) obligations
  2. 2 Appropriate costs order following dismissal of appeals

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of the appellants' arguments justified departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event; the proceedings, though bona fide and raising a serious issue, did not warrant excusing the appellants from liability for costs. The respondent is entitled to costs as proposed in paragraph 76 of the original judgment.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to respondent as per paragraph 76 of the original judgment.

Orders

  • Respondent awarded costs of paperwork associated with each appeal.
  • Single set of costs for written legal submissions and hearing to be taxed jointly and severally against all appellants.