- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
IBB Internet Services Ltd v Motorola Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A, Company B and Company C (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) operate a broadband business. They allege that Company D (“Defendant”) breached contracts to supply the technical facilities required for that business, causing losses said to exceed €100 million. The High Court has issued several interlocutory rulings on the adequacy of the Plaintiffs’ pleadings and, most recently, on the Defendant’s application for security for costs under s. 390 of the Companies Act 1963. The High Court (Judge McGovern) refused security, holding that the Defendant had not proved the Plaintiffs’ inability to pay. The Defendant appealed that refusal; the Supreme Court (Judges McKechnie, Clarke and MacMenamin) delivered the present judgment on the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the correct legal standard under s. 390 of the Companies Act 1963 for showing that a corporate plaintiff “will be unable” to pay a future costs order—does it require proof on the balance of probabilities, or only “reason to believe”?
- On the evidence, did the Defendant establish such inability on the part of the Plaintiffs?
- If inability were established, had the Plaintiffs shown “special circumstances” justifying refusal of security?
- What role, if any, should cross-examination play in a s. 390 application decided on affidavit evidence?
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant/Appellant’s Arguments
- The High Court applied the wrong standard; it should have accepted the Defendant’s uncontested affidavit evidence as “credible testimony” and required security once a prima facie defence and inability to pay were shown.
- Note 1 and the auditor’s “emphasis of matter” in the Plaintiffs’ 2011 accounts amounted to an admission that the Plaintiffs could not meet their liabilities.
- The trial judge gave unwarranted weight to an untested valuation of the Plaintiffs’ broadband-spectrum licences; even if valuable, those assets had not been reflected in the accounts.
- If inability to pay was established, the Plaintiffs had not proved that any impecuniosity was caused by the Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing; most group losses were unrelated to the contracts in suit.
Plaintiffs/Respondents’ Arguments
- The correct test is whether, on all the evidence, the court has “reason to believe” the Plaintiffs will be unable to pay, a standard requiring the court to weigh both sides’ material rather than accept unchallenged affidavits at face value.
- Note 1 merely warned of long-term consequences if the claim failed; it did not concede current inability to pay.
- Irish GAAP barred recognition of the full value of spectrum licences in the balance sheet, but expert evidence placed that value between €50 million and €120 million—far exceeding any likely costs award.
- Even if inability were shown, it resulted from the Defendant’s alleged contractual defaults and thus constituted a “special circumstance.”
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Interfinance Group Ltd v. KPMG Pete Marwick (High Court, 1988) | Two-limb test for security for costs: (1) prima facie defence; (2) inability to pay; then discretion. | Formed the foundation of the s. 390 analysis adopted by Judge McGovern and reviewed on appeal. |
| Usk & District Residents Association Ltd v. Environmental Protection Agency [2006] IESC 1 | Approved and restated the Interfinance test. | Accepted by all parties as governing authority. |
| Jirehouse Capital v. Beller [2009] 1 WLR 751 | Interpreted identical “reason to believe” wording in English CPR; distinguishes that test from balance of probabilities. | Supreme Court adopted its reasoning to conclude that “reason to believe” is less stringent than proof on the balance of probabilities but more than a mere risk. |
| Phillips v. Eversheds [2002] EWCA Civ 486 | Explained “significant danger” test in security applications. | Cited via Jirehouse to illustrate the qualitative threshold of “reason to believe.” |
| Philip v. Ryan [2004] 4 IR 241 | Approach to hypothetical or future events in civil litigation. | Used to justify why balance-of-probabilities is ill-suited to predicting future solvency. |
| Boliden Tara Mines v. Cosgrove [2010] IESC 62 | Limits on rejecting affidavit evidence absent cross-examination. | Discussed when considering role of cross-examination in interlocutory motions. |
| Re McInerney Homes Ltd (No. 2) [2011] IEHC 4 | Same principle regarding evaluation of conflicting affidavits. | Reinforced the Court’s reluctance to order cross-examination in s. 390 applications. |
| Peppard v. Bogoff (Irish Supreme Court) | “Special circumstances” exception where impecuniosity is caused by defendant’s wrongdoing. | High Court indicated, and Supreme Court noted, that this principle would apply if inability were proved. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Clarke, writing for the Court, first analysed s. 390’s wording—“reason to believe” the plaintiff “will be” unable to pay—and concluded, following Jirehouse, that the standard is appreciably lower than proof on the balance of probabilities yet requires more than identifying a mere risk. Because the inquiry concerns a future, uncertain event, the balance-of-probabilities test is conceptually inappropriate.
Turning to the evidence, the Court acknowledged that Note 1 and the auditor’s emphasis of matter initially suggested solvency doubts, but stressed that those statements pre-dated expert evidence placing a minimum €50 million value on the Plaintiffs’ broadband-spectrum licences. That valuation was uncontradicted by the Defendant. Even on a “doomsday” liquidation scenario—discounting the book value of all other assets—the spectrum alone would leave a surplus exceeding €10 million after discharging all liabilities, comfortably covering the Defendant’s highest cost estimate (€4.5 million).
The Court rejected the Defendant’s contention that the Plaintiffs should nonetheless be ordered to provide security because they could allegedly raise funds against the spectrum. Where the only expert evidence supported solvency, the statutory threshold could not be met. The Court also explained that cross-examination is rarely appropriate in interlocutory security applications; judges should resolve the issue on the totality of affidavit material unless “truly exceptional” circumstances arise.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED – ORDER REFUSING SECURITY AFFIRMED.
Immediate effect: the Defendant’s application for security for costs fails, and the underlying breach-of-contract action will proceed without the Plaintiffs having to lodge security. Broader implications: the judgment clarifies that under s. 390 a court must be “satisfied there is reason to believe” a company will be unable to pay—an assessment that is predictive and evidence-based, but does not demand proof on the balance of probabilities. It also emphasises the limited role of cross-examination in interlocutory motions and reiterates that valuable unbooked assets can defeat a security application even where published accounts appear weak.
Alert