High Court dismisses application to reopen striking out order and orders plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe High Court refused the plaintiffs' request to reopen a previous order striking out their proceedings. The court determined that no factual basis existed to alter the initial ruling that dismissed the case. Consequently, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs and were permitted to appeal the decision.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedRules of the Superior Courts; The court held that a prior order striking out proceedings cannot be reopened absent a compelling reason, and the normal presumptive rule regarding costs applies when an application fails.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
THE HIGH COURT
[2024] IEHC 615
[Record No. 2020/6709P]
BETWEEN
THOMAS FARRELL & SONS (CARRIAGES) LIMITED
PLAINTIFFS
AND
THE REVENUE COMISSIONERS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Liam Kennedy delivered on the 31st day of October 2024.
1. On 30 September 2024 I delivered a written judgment striking out these proceedings and providing my provisional views as to costs but giving the parties leave to file submissions if they wished to contend that any other order may be appropriate. Such submissions have now been received on behalf of the plaintiffs. The thrust of those submissions is that the plaintiffs disagree with my judgment and seeks further directions with a view to continuing to agate the substantive issues in the proceedings. There is no basis to do so in view of my ruling. The submissions invite me to “reopen” my decision but I see no possible basis upon which to do so in the circumstances.
2. The plaintiffs are entitled to appeal. They do not require leave to do so providing they do so without delay in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of the Superior Courts. . At this stage I am only concerned with the costs of the recent applications and the proceedings to date. I have considered all points raised in the plaintiffs’ submissions. I remain of the view that the normal presumptive rule should apply and that the plaintiffs must pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings and the applications to be adjudicated in default of agreement. I see no basis for a stay. I accordingly direct that the order should be perfected in those terms.