Immediate Costs Awards under Order 99, Rule 2(5): Clarifying Cost Payments in Jurisdiction and Discovery Motions

Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court’s costs ruling in Yasar v CCC Essen Digital GmbH & Anor, Talibov v CCC Essen Digital GmbH & Anor and Senen v CCC Barcelona Digital Services SLU & Anor [2025] IEHC 288. These three related actions involved jurisdictional challenges brought by plaintiffs Ugur Yasar, Abuzar Talibov and Kyra Senen against various CCC entities (Essen Digital GmbH and Barcelona Digital Services SLU) and associated Meta/Facebook defendants. Following the principal judgment on jurisdiction ([2025] IEHC 248), Justice Conleth Bradley was asked to determine three discrete cost issues: (1) costs of the jurisdiction motions themselves, (2) costs arising from a case-management “call-over” in July 2024, and (3) costs of discovery motions previously ruled upon in October 2024. This ruling provides clarity on when costs follow the event, how and when costs may be ordered to be paid forthwith under Order 99, rule 2(5) of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (“RSC 1986”), and the effect of stays pending appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

The judgment addresses three distinct issues:

Jurisdiction Motions Costs: Applying the default rule under sections 168–169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and Order 99, rules 2 & 3 RSC 1986 that “costs follow the event,” the court awarded full costs to the successful CCC entities on each jurisdiction motion, subject to a stay of execution if an appeal is filed.
Call-Over Costs (25–26 July 2024): The court ordered that the costs of the late adjournment application made by the plaintiffs during the Non-Jury/Judicial Review List call-over, and related transcript (“DAR”) application on 30 July 2024, be paid forthwith under Order 99, rule 2(5) RSC 1986, without any stay, on the basis that liability was not in dispute and the application consumed over one and a half hours of court time.
Discovery Motions Costs: Having previously ordered costs in the first discovery motion (Yasar) to be paid forthwith, the court declined to revisit its earlier rulings in respect of discovery motions in Talibov and Senen. Those costs are to be adjudicated or agreed under the established process.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (Sections 168–169): Establishes the default position that costs follow the event, with judicial discretion to depart where conduct or circumstances warrant.
Rules of the Superior Courts 1986:
- Order 99, rules 2 & 3: Governs assessment and award of costs, expressly permitting immediate costs orders under rule 2(5).
- Order 12, rule 26: Provides the mechanism for setting aside service on jurisdictional grounds, invoked in the principal judgment.
Practice Direction HC125: Encourages payment on account of costs where liability is undisputed or otherwise appropriate.
EU Regulation 1215/2012 Articles 8(1) & 25: Grounds for non-jurisdiction invoked to set aside service.
Principal Judgment ([2025] IEHC 248): Decided the jurisdiction motions on their merits, providing the factual and legal foundation for this costs ruling.
Ex Tempore Ruling by Hyland J (26 July 2024): Reserved costs of a late adjournment application, which Justice Bradley later quantified.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds from first principles:

Costs Follow the Event: Absent special circumstances, the successful party is entitled to its costs. Here, the CCC entities wholly succeeded on jurisdiction, so costs follow the event.
Reserved Costs vs. Immediate Payment: Costs reserved by Hyland J in July 2024 became payable when liability was clear and the issues were concluded. Under Order 99, rule 2(5), the court may require payment of costs forthwith if the party liability is undisputed, even before conclusion of all proceedings.
Stay of Execution on Appeal: While entitlement to costs is established, execution may be stayed pending appeal to avoid unjust outcomes should the principal judgment be overturned.
Discretionary Decline to Re-open: On the discovery motions in Talibov and Senen, the court declined to revisit its earlier October 2024 cost rulings, in deference to the established adjudication process and the principle against re-litigation of cost decisions.

Impact on Future Cases

This ruling will guide practitioners and courts in several respects:

It confirms that Order 99, rule 2(5) can be used liberally to secure immediate payment of costs once liability is clear and no dispute exists.
It clarifies that stays on cost orders pending appeal are appropriate for substantive motions but need not apply to discrete case-management costs when liability is undisputed.
It reinforces that reserved costs should only be reopened in exceptional circumstances, promoting finality in cost adjudications.
It underscores the interplay between statutory cost provisions, court rules and practice directions in structuring cost outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Costs Follow the Event”: The usual rule that the loser pays the winner’s legal costs, unless the court orders otherwise.
“Order 99, Rule 2(5)”: A provision allowing the court to order payment of costs immediately, even before all proceedings are concluded, when liability is not in issue.
“Reserved Costs”: Costs which a judge decides to determine later, often because issues of liability or quantum remain unresolved.
“Call-Over”: A preliminary listing process where the court allocates hearing dates and deals with urgent case-management applications.
“DAR” (Daily Approved Report): A formal transcript of ex tempore judgments or rulings delivered by the court.

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in [2025] IEHC 288 establishes a clear framework for awarding and enforcing costs in multi-stage litigation. It reaffirms the default principle that costs follow the event, authorizes immediate cost orders under Order 99, rule 2(5) where liability is undisputed, and delineates the circumstances in which stays of execution pending appeal should be granted. Practitioners should note the court’s insistence on finality in cost disputes and the limited grounds for re-opening prior cost decisions. This judgment will serve as an authoritative guide on the timing, quantification and payment of costs in jurisdictional and discovery-related motions.