Irish Court of Appeal

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

 

Neutral Citation Number: 2025 IECA 38

 

Court of Appeal Record Number: 2023/251

 

High Court Record Number: 2017/72525P

 

Noonan J.

Power J.

Meenan J.

 

IN THE MATTER OF DECOBAKE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2014

 

 

BETWEEN/

 

 

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL, KATHY QUINN, DEIRDRE MURPHY, DENIS MCHUGH, ELEANOR BRENNAN, TERENCE O'KEEFFE AND ODHRAN KEEGAN

 

 

RESPONDENTS

 

 

- AND –

 

 

PAUL COYLE AND MARGARET COYLE

 

APPELLANTS

 

 

RULING on Costs delivered by Mr. Justice Charles Meenan on the 19^th day of February 2025 

1.             On 26 March 2024 I delivered a judgment in this appeal.  The appellant, Mr. Paul Coyle, appealed an order of the High Court (Cregan J.) granting an "Issac Wunder" order against the appellant.  The appeal was dismissed.

2.             In the course of my judgment I set out, at para. 13, the various grounds advanced by the appellant in the notice of appeal.  At para. 16 I noted that in support of the appeal the appellant filed written submissions.  These submissions were the same submissions as had been filed in the High Court.  There was, obviously, no mention of the judgment of Cregan J. nor were any submissions made in support of any of the grounds of appeal.  There was no submission made to the effect that the Trial Judge did not cite the appropriate legal authorities or failed to apply the correct principles. 

3.             At the conclusion of the judgment the parties were invited to make written submissions on the issue of costs.

Submissions: -

4.              Though the Court had directed written submissions on costs were not to exceed 1,000 words, the appellant's submissions were in excess of 2,000 words.  The appellant complained: -

".. I found the judgment and its lack of clear reasoning failed to provide a focus for me.  I would like to remind the court that I am a lay litigant with a cognitive disability and respectively, I feel the lack of preciseness within the judgment has provided none or very little explanation as to why I failed in my arguments."

5.              In his submissions the appellant sought to revisit the refusal of the High Court to grant an adjournment on the grounds of his disability.  He also submits that as a "lay litigant" he is prejudiced by being subject to an Issac Wunder order.  The appellant referred to s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (the Act of 2015) which provides for "wide discretion" on the part of the Court to depart from the rule that costs follow the event "having regard to the particular nature and circumstances of the case, and the conduct of the proceedings by the party".  He then purports to list a number of issues concerning both respondents.

6.             In response, both respondents filed written submissions.  Both respondents relied on the provisions of ss. 168 and 169 of the Act of 2015.  They submitted that the appellant had not disclosed any basis for the Court to depart from the general rule that a party who is "entirely successful" is entitled to an award of costs against the unsuccessful party. 

Decision: -  

7.             Having considered the written submissions filed by the parties, I am of the view that the respondents are entitled to their costs against the appellant.  The appellant has failed to identify any ground upon which this Court should not award costs to the respondents, who have been "entirely successful" in opposing the appeal.  The appellant's submission, for the most part, seeks to re-litigate issues raised both in the High Court and in the course of the appeal.  The appellant does not agree with the judgment of this Court but that is not sufficient to avoid an order for costs being made against him. 

8.             In conclusion, the respondents are entitled to the costs of the appeal, to include any reserved costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

9.             As this ruling is being delivered electronically, Noonan and Power JJ. have authorised me to record their agreement with it.

Result:     Costs to the Respondents.