Quinlan v Quinlan (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff brought proceedings seeking damages for personal injuries, loss, and damage resulting from an assault, battery, and trespass to the person by the defendant, her husband, occurring at their former family home on 14 December 2013. Judgment was delivered on 28 February 2025. Although the plaintiff initially relied on medical reports from her General Practitioner and/or an Orthopedic Surgeon to particularize her injuries, no such reports were presented at trial, nor were these medical professionals called to give evidence. Consequently, the Court was unable to find on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff sustained any specific clinical injury or that the injuries required particular medical or surgical treatment. The Court awarded €25,000 in general damages for pain and suffering limited to the immediate assault and its immediate aftermath.

The matter returned before the Court on 7 March 2025 for consideration of costs. The plaintiff sought Circuit Court costs with a certificate for Senior Counsel. The defendant opposed the certificate and sought a differential costs order pursuant to section 17(5) of the Courts Act 1981, as amended.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should grant a certificate for Senior Counsel to the plaintiff for costs purposes.
2. Whether the Court should make a differential costs order under section 17(5) of the Courts Act 1981, given that the damages awarded fell within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court despite proceedings being commenced and tried in the High Court.
3. How to apply the principles governing differential costs orders, including the timing of a warning letter and the appropriateness of commencing and continuing proceedings in the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• No certificate for Senior Counsel should be awarded.
• The Court should make a differential costs order under section 17(5) of the Courts Act 1981.
• The defendant issued a differential costs warning letter on 5 February 2025, which the plaintiff did not respond to by remitting proceedings to the Circuit Court.
• The award of damages was well within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, strongly favoring a differential costs order.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The case involves assault and battery with a family law element, and a differential costs order could exacerbate family tensions.
• The defendant has been effectively convicted of a criminal offence in civil court, and awarding a differential costs order would reward the defendant's conduct.
• The plaintiff suffered pain, terror, and humiliation from the assault, making it unjust to impose a differential costs order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by summarizing the principles derived from the cited authorities concerning section 17(5) of the Courts Act 1981. The section provides two options to a trial judge when damages awarded fall within the jurisdiction of a lower court: either to measure and order the plaintiff to pay the difference in costs or to refer the matter for adjudication. The legislative purpose is to discourage unnecessary commencement of proceedings in higher courts when the claim could be dealt with in a lower court, thus protecting defendants from unfair costs burdens.

The Court noted that judicial discretion to make a differential costs order is triggered by the award of damages within a lower court's jurisdiction but is not mandatory. It may be declined if the award is close to the lower court's limit or if unpredictable developments during the trial reduced the damages. The Court must consider whether it was reasonable to commence and continue proceedings in the higher court and the timing and effect of any warning letters.

Applying these principles, the Court found that it was appropriate to commence and maintain proceedings in the High Court based on the plaintiff's pleadings and particulars, which indicated potential damages within the High Court's jurisdiction. The absence of medical evidence and reports, which became apparent only shortly before trial, was an unforeseen development that reduced damages to the Circuit Court level. The defendant issued a warning letter on 5 February 2025, after which the plaintiff failed to seek to remit the matter to the Circuit Court.

The Court held that all costs incurred before the warning letter were properly incurred as High Court costs. However, after the warning letter, the plaintiff should have considered remitting the proceedings. The failure to do so justified a differential costs order limited to the difference in trial attendance costs for the defendant's solicitor between the High Court and Circuit Court hearings. The Court declined to make a differential costs order regarding trial preparation costs, as these were minimal.

Holding and Implications

The Court awarded the plaintiff's costs on the Circuit Court scale with a certificate for Senior Counsel and made a differential costs order in the amount of €1,476 payable by the plaintiff to the defendant. No order was made for costs in respect of the costs hearing itself.

The decision reflects a balanced application of the statutory and case law principles governing differential costs orders. It upholds the legislative aim of encouraging appropriate court venue selection while recognizing the reasonableness of commencing proceedings in the High Court based on the plaintiff's initial case. The ruling imposes a modest financial consequence on the plaintiff for failing to remit the matter after the defendant's warning letter, but does not preclude awarding Senior Counsel costs where justified. No new precedent was established; the ruling adheres to established legal principles.