Ambasaid Ltd & Anor v MBCC Foods [Ireland] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a costs ruling following litigation between Company A and Company B. The proceedings were protracted, lasting approximately seven days, and involved multiple complex issues on which both parties achieved partial success. The judgment references a prior decision delivered on 21st February 2025 that contains the full background and findings. The current ruling addresses the allocation of costs arising from the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to its costs under section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015, given that it was not entirely successful in the proceedings.
2. How the court should exercise its discretion under section 168 of the 2015 Act to allocate costs between parties who were partially successful.
3. The impact of parties’ conduct and reasonableness on the award of costs.
4. The appropriate apportionment of costs in a case involving multiple discrete issues with mixed outcomes.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the complexity of the proceedings and the intertwined nature of the issues, which resulted in both parties being successful on some issues and unsuccessful on others. The court applied the principles set out in the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015, particularly sections 168 and 169, as interpreted in the Chubb case. It noted that the Plaintiff was not entirely successful and thus not entitled to full costs under section 169(1).

The court emphasized its discretionary power to award costs proportionate to the issues on which each party succeeded, including the possibility of setting off costs. The conduct and reasonableness of the parties were critical factors influencing this discretion. The court found examples of unreasonable or improper conduct on both sides, which contributed to the length and complexity of the litigation.

The court reviewed multiple discrete issues, including variations of rent, timing of rent liability, payment status at the break date, the validity of the break option, service charge calculations, VAT treatment, and reinstatement obligations. The outcomes on these issues were mixed, with some being won by the Plaintiff, others by the Defendant, and several considered draws in terms of cost liability.

Given the balanced success and failure of both parties and their conduct, the court concluded that a fair costs order would reflect equal responsibility, rather than awarding costs to one party in full.

Holding and Implications

Each party is liable to pay 50% of the costs of the other, with a set-off directed. The court ordered that where costs cannot be agreed, the matter shall be adjudicated by the Legal Costs Adjudicator.

The decision underscores the discretionary nature of costs awards under the post-2015 legal regime, particularly in complex cases with multiple issues and partial successes. It highlights the importance of reasonable conduct and the court’s willingness to apportion costs to reflect the realities of litigation outcomes rather than adhering to a winner-takes-all approach. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory principles.