Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IECA 51 ECLI:IE:CA:2025:51 AI generated

Court of Appeal dismisses appeal on costs ruling, awarding costs to Promontoria as they were wholly successful.

Case Number IECA 51
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the High Court's refusal to strike out proceedings and grant an interlocutory injunction. Promontoria successfully opposed the appeal, leading the court to view them as wholly successful in opposing the appellant's claims. Consequently, the court ordered Promontoria to recover their costs from the appellant, while declining to award costs for a specific prior motion handled by consent.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Costs Act 1963; Costs follow the event: where a party is wholly successful in opposing an appeal, they are entitled to recover their costs from the appellant.

Keywords

AI generated
costs follow the event interlocutory injunction strike out proceedings Court of Appeal costs adjudication

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Costs Act 1963

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

APPROVED NO REDACTION NEEDED

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] IECA 51

Court of Appeal Record Number: 2024/270

High Court Record Number: 2024/698P

Costello P. Meenan J. McDonald J.

BETWEEN/

YEOKSEE OOI

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

- AND –

IRELAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BRIAN MCDONAGH &

PROMONTORIA SCARIFF DAC

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

RULING ON COSTS delivered by Mr. Justice Charles Meenan on the 28th day of February 2025

1. On 21 February 2025 the Court delivered its judgment in the appellant’s appeal against an order of the High Court (Cahill J.) refusing the third named respondent’s (Promontoria) application to strike out the appellant’s proceedings and refusing the appellant’s application for an interlocutory injunction.

2. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed, as was Promontoria’s cross-appeal against the order of the High Court refusing to strike out the proceedings.

3. At the conclusion of the judgment (at para. 36) the provisional view of the Court was expressed that as Promontoria had been “wholly successful” in opposing the appeal, it was entitled to its costs.

4. Subsequently, in correspondence received from the appellant, the following was stated: - “For the avoidance of doubt and in keeping with the policy of ‘costs follow the event’ I do concede costs on my motion which was refused.”

5. Promontoria delivered its submissions on 28 February 2025. In the course of these submissions Promontoria sought the costs of a motion issued by the appellant on 27 November 2024, returnable to 13 December 2024. The reliefs sought in this motion included an order extending the interim injunction granted by the High Court and an order permitting the admittance of further evidence in the appeal. The motion was dealt with by consent of the parties and the order of the court made no reference to costs. In these circumstances Promontoria will not be granted an order for costs in respect of the said motion.

6. Having regard to the submissions received by the parties, the following orders for costs will be made: -

(1) An order for costs in favour of the third named respondent (Promontoria) against the appellant in respect of the costs of the appellant’s appeal to include all reserved costs, such costs to be adjudicated in default of agreement.

(2) No order as to the costs associated with Promontoria’s cross-appeal.