Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by the Plaintiffs for the costs of an interim injunction granted on 17 July 2024 and an interlocutory injunction granted on 3 April 2025. The injunctions restrain the Defendants from taking possession of, advertising for sale, offering for sale, or selling any part of the first Plaintiff's lands. The interlocutory injunction was a continuation of the interim relief, and the Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' application for costs, arguing that costs should be reserved to the trial or made costs in the cause.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should award costs to the Plaintiffs for the interim and interlocutory injunction applications, or whether costs should be reserved to the trial or made costs in the cause.
- Whether the Defendants acted reasonably in contesting the interlocutory injunction application, affecting the Court’s discretion on awarding costs at interlocutory stage.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The Plaintiffs seek an award of costs for the interim injunction, interlocutory injunction, and the costs application, asserting that they were successful in a hard-fought interlocutory application.
- The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants proceeded to take drastic steps, including attempting to sell part of the first Plaintiff’s lands without having clear documentary evidence to support the power to do so.
- The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants acted unreasonably in contesting the injunction application, given the documentary evidence available.
Defendants' Arguments
- The Defendants argue that costs should be reserved to the trial or made costs in the cause, relying on the principle that certain factual issues, such as the true effect of a letter sent in August 2012, will only be justly determined at trial.
- They rely on the judgment in ACC Bank plc v. Hanrahan to support the proposition that costs of interlocutory applications should often be reserved to trial when factual matters remain unresolved.
- The Defendants contend that they were at a disadvantage because they do not have the original loan documentation, which is a matter between the first Defendant and its predecessor-in-title.
- They also point to a Notice of Motion in related proceedings, suggesting an apparent inconsistency in the Plaintiffs' position regarding when the loan became due.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| ACC Bank plc v. Hanrahan [2014] 1 IR 1, [2014] IESC 40 |
Guidance on awarding costs for interlocutory applications, particularly summary judgment and injunctions; the Court must consider whether it is just to adjudicate on costs at interlocutory stage and whether parties acted reasonably. |
The Court considered this precedent authoritative on interlocutory costs, rejecting the Defendants' submission that costs should be reserved to trial by default and emphasizing that unreasonable conduct in contesting interlocutory relief can justify an immediate award of costs. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by considering the relevant statutory and procedural rules governing costs, specifically Order 99, rule 2(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, as amended, which requires the Court to make an award of costs upon determining interlocutory applications unless it is not just to do so. The Court also considered section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, which entitles a party who is entirely successful to costs unless the Court orders otherwise due to the conduct and circumstances of the case.
Applying these principles, the Court examined the Defendants' reliance on Hanrahan to argue for reserving costs to trial. The Court found that Hanrahan does not mandate reserving costs as a default and that the presence of unresolved factual issues alone does not preclude a just adjudication of costs at interlocutory stage.
The Court noted that the interlocutory application was substantial and hard-fought, with the Defendants raising numerous issues, all of which failed. Importantly, the Defendants appeared unable to identify or produce critical loan documentation, including the 1990 Loan Offer Letter, which was central to determining the date the debt fell due and the validity of the Defendants' power to appoint a receiver and seek possession.
The Court found that the documentary evidence available at interlocutory stage pointed to the debt having become due on 27 January 2011, contrary to the Defendants' submission that the debt fell due only on demand in March 2024. The Defendants did not provide a basis for this later date in the mortgage documents or loan offer letter, and this lack of evidence undermined their position.
The Court expressed concern that the Defendants proceeded with demanding payment, appointing a receiver, and attempting to sell the Plaintiffs' lands without clear documentary authority, raising serious legal questions about the validity of those steps and the potential extinguishment of the debt by the Statute of Limitations.
Given these circumstances, the Court held that it was unreasonable for the Defendants to contest the interlocutory injunction on the basis argued, and that the Plaintiffs were forced to litigate to protect their rights. The Court emphasized that the Defendants had ample time to review evidence and consider their position but instead chose to contest the application fully, resulting in unnecessary costs and hardship for the Plaintiffs.
Holding and Implications
The Court AWARDED COSTS to the Plaintiffs for the interim injunction, the interlocutory injunction, and the costs application, including the costs of the hearing on 7 May 2025.
The direct effect is that the Plaintiffs will recover their costs incurred in obtaining and defending the injunctions at interlocutory stages. The Court did not set any new precedent but reaffirmed the principle that interlocutory costs awards are appropriate where a party has acted unreasonably in contesting interlocutory relief, even if factual issues remain to be resolved at trial.