Respondent awarded partial costs for successful claim but limited due to procedural deficiencies in evidence.
Ireland (IE)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Court awarded costs to the second Respondent for their overall success in the possession proceedings. However, the award was limited because the Respondent's initial affidavits were insufficient, necessitating further evidence and an appeal that would not have occurred otherwise. The Court held that while the Respondent succeeded, the procedural path taken was unfair due to their own deficiencies in proof.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedSection 169 (1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015; A party entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to costs, but the court may limit the award if the success resulted from procedural inefficiencies caused by the successful party's own deficiencies in proof.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedCited Case Law
AI generatedFull text
THE HIGH COURT
CIRCUIT APPEAL
Record number 2019/248/CA
[2025] IEHC 445
BETWEEN
EBS MORTGAGE FINANCE
AND MARS CAPITAL FINANCE DAC
PLAINTIFFS / RESPONDENTS
AND
DWAYNE BEDFORD AND NICOLA BEDFORD (No. 4)
DEFENDANTS / APPELLANTS
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Mary Rose Gearty delivered on the 31st day of July, 2025
1. Ruling on Costs
1.1 This was a summary application for an order for possession of a principal private residence. The original Plaintiff was successful in the Circuit Court and, after the second named entity was added as co-respondent, the Respondents eventually succeeded in the High Court also.
1.2 The summary proceedings were not successful in the sense that the affidavits and exhibits filed were not sufficient to prove an entitlement to the loans and further documentation was sought. When this was provided, one of the affidavits in support of the Respondents’ case was insufficient and that deponent had to be called to give evidence, which hearing took place leading to the final High Court judgment in the matter. The procedural history is set out therein: EBS Mortgage Finance and Another v Bedford (No. 3) [2025] IEHC 381
1.3 Section 169 (1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 provides that a party who is entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to an award of costs against a party who is not successful in those proceedings.
1.4 It is submitted that the second Named Respondent has been entirely successful, and the Court is asked not to depart from the general rule that costs should follow the event. That party seeks the costs of the Circuit Court proceedings and of the appeal to this Court. The Appellants made no submissions on costs.
1.5 Given the overall success of the claim, it appears to me unfair not to make an order in favour of the second named Respondent but, in circumstances where the appeal followed a path that would not have been necessary had the affidavits been sufficiently detailed and reliable, the costs order will be limited. I am awarding costs to the second Respondent, against the Appellants, in respect of the Circuit Court proceedings and in respect of the appeal up to and including the first hearing date in the High Court. I will make no order in respect of the High Court costs thereafter as these were incurred, to a large extent, due to the deficiencies in proof on the part of that Respondent. Those costs are to be adjudicated in default of agreement.