Precedent on Tender Offers and Differential Costs in Multi-Collision Claims

Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court’s decision in Rezmuves v Simons ([2025] IEHC 227), which addresses the principles governing costs in a combined action for injuries arising from three separate road traffic collisions. The plaintiff, Mr. Zsolt Rezmuves, sued three defendants, including Mr. Patrick Simons, and ultimately recovered damages of €53,050. Liability for the third collision (10 March 2017) was admitted by Mr. Simons. The core issues in the judgment relate to (1) entitlement to costs following statutory and rules-based tender offers, and (2) the exercise of judicial discretion to make a differential costs order where the award sits within the jurisdictional limit of a lower court.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Justice Tony O’Connor determined the costs consequences of Mr. Simons’ admitted liability and prior tender offers. Key outcomes:

The plaintiff recovers €13,262.50 from Mr. Simons.
Costs entitlement for the plaintiff under Order 22 RSC arises from the tender of €30,555 (March 2019) and a subsequent tender of €50,001, fixed on the Circuit Court scale up to 10 April 2019.
The defendant recovers his costs from 28 July 2022 (the date proceedings were assigned a trial date after plaintiff discharged solicitors) through the last trial day, excluding costs of the section 26 application.
No costs are awarded for the interlude 11 April 2019 to 27 July 2022 or the costs hearing itself; all costs are to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
The defendant may offset the award of damages and plaintiff’s costs against his own costs award.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Little v Chief Appeals Officer, Social Welfare Office & Minister for Social Protection [2024] IESC 53
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court’s power to award costs derives solely from statute.
Word Perfect Translation Services Ltd v Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform [2023] IECA 189
The Court of Appeal emphasised a “broad-brush-stroke” approach to costs hearings under s. 169(1) LSRA to avoid nit-picking and protracted disputes.
Moin v Sicika & O’Malley v McEvoy [2018] IECA 240
Affirmed the trial judge’s discretion to make a differential costs order where the ultimate award is significantly within the jurisdiction of a lower court (Circuit or District Court), reflecting the legislative purpose of limiting plaintiff’s costs.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two strands:

Tender Offers and Statutory Entitlement:
- Under Order 22(6)(3) RSC, a successful tenderer is entitled to costs from the date of the tender if the eventual award does not exceed the offer.
- Mr. Simons’ €30,555 offer (13 March 2019) and a later €50,001 offer triggered entitlement to costs on the Circuit Court scale up to 28 days thereafter (10 April 2019).
- The LSRA (s. 168–169) and Rules of the Superior Courts (O. 22, O. 99) provide the statutory framework for calculation and certification of costs.
Differential Costs Order:
- The award (€53,050) fell within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction, although proceedings were in the High Court.
- Pursuant to Moin, the judge must consider the legislative intent to limit costs where an award sits within lower court limits. No exceptional cause was shown to depart from that rule.
- The trial’s complexity and the plaintiff’s self-representation did not justify full High Court costs for the plaintiff post-tender date.

Impact

This judgment clarifies and reinforces several cost-related principles:

It underscores the potency of timely tenders under Order 22 RSC to cap exposure to adverse costs.
It confirms that even complex, multi-claim litigation may attract a differential cost order when awards remain within the ambit of a lower court.
It signals to practitioners the importance of considering forum-jurisdictional limits and the timing of tenders in designing litigation strategy.
The decision promotes judicial economy by discouraging over-litigation of satellite cost issues once a tender has been made.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Order 22 Tender: A defendant’s offer to settle the plaintiff’s claim for a specified sum. If the plaintiff recovers no more than that sum at trial, the defendant is entitled to costs from the date of that offer.
Differential Costs Order: A costs order in which the losing party pays costs only from a specified date, often where the award falls within the jurisdiction of a lower court, reflecting legislative limits on plaintiff’s costs.
LSRA (Legal Services Regulation Act 2015): Statute laying down rules for recovery and certification of legal costs in civil proceedings.
Section 26 Application: A procedural device to amend a plaintiff’s claim after issue. Here, the plaintiff’s belated loss-of-earnings claim under s. 26 was rejected and its costs excluded from the defendant’s liability.

Conclusion

Rezmuves v Simons establishes a leading precedent on the mechanics and timing of tender offers and the exercise of judicial discretion in differential costs orders. It reinforces the statutory footing of cost awards under the LSRA and Rules of the Superior Courts, and clarifies that complex multi-collision litigation will not automatically justify full High Court costs when the judgment falls within lower court jurisdiction. Practitioners should take heed of this decision in framing offers and selecting the appropriate forum, ensuring cost-efficient resolution of personal injury and other civil claims.