- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ACC Bank plc v Hanrahan
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff/Appellant instituted two summary proceedings to recover liquidated sums arising from lending transactions. The Defendants/Respondents entered appearances, and the Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. After replying affidavits were exchanged, the motions were transferred from the Master of the High Court to the judge’s list and were allocated one-and-a-half days of hearing time.
Judge [Last Name] of the High Court concluded that the Defendants had met the low threshold of establishing an arguable defence and remitted both matters to plenary hearing. The Defendants then sought, and obtained, an order that the costs of the summary judgment motions be paid by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appealed only the costs orders to the Supreme Court, which comprised Judge Clarke, Judge Laffoy and Judge Dunne.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the correct principled approach to allocating costs when a summary judgment motion is refused and the case is remitted to plenary hearing?
- In what circumstances may an appellate court interfere with a trial judge’s discretionary order on costs when the substantive decision is not under appeal?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Allied Irish Banks v. Diamond [2011] IEHC 505 | Costs of interlocutory applications may depend on factual findings ultimately made at trial. | Used to analogise summary judgment motions with interlocutory injunctions where facts are later tested, supporting deferral or “costs in the cause.” |
| Tekenable Limited v. Morrissey & Ors [2012] IEHC 505 | Approved the approach in Diamond regarding postponing costs when facts remain to be finally determined. | Reinforced the proposition that reserving or making costs “in the cause” is usually appropriate for applications turning on contested facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that appellate interference with trial-level costs orders is justified only where the trial judge erred in principle or made a clear and material error in applying the correct principles. Judge Clarke held that Judge [Last Name] adopted an erroneous principle by treating the Plaintiff’s failure to secure summary judgment as an “event” automatically justifying an adverse costs order.
The Court outlined the following analytical framework:
- Order 99, rule 1(4A) obliges a court to decide costs of interlocutory applications unless it is not just to do so at that stage.
- For motions such as discovery—discrete “events” unlikely to be re-litigated—the motion judge is best placed to decide costs immediately.
- Where an interlocutory application (e.g., injunctions or summary judgment) hinges on contested factual assertions that will be finally resolved at trial, costs should generally be reserved or made “in the cause.”
- An exception arises if a party’s behaviour in bringing or resisting the motion was “manifestly unreasonable”; only then should immediate adverse costs be imposed.
Applying these principles, the Court found no evidence that the Plaintiff acted “manifestly unreasonably” in pursuing summary judgment. The Plaintiff’s failure to obtain judgment did not, by itself, meet that threshold.
Holding and Implications
Appeal ALLOWED. The orders granting the Defendants their costs of the summary judgment motions are set aside and replaced with orders that those costs be costs in the cause.
Implications: The decision clarifies that, absent manifest unreasonableness, the default position for costs of an unsuccessful summary judgment motion is either to reserve them or make them costs in the cause. The ruling serves as guidance for lower courts but does not create a new standalone precedent beyond reaffirming established principles.
Alert