Rezmuves v Simons (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns the issue of costs arising from a plaintiff’s claim related to injuries sustained in three road traffic accidents, for which the defendant accepted liability for the third collision occurring on 10 March 2017. The Court awarded a total sum for injuries from all three accidents without apportioning liability between the defendants due to an arrangement reached among them. The proceedings involved a protracted trial of all three claims together, with most special damages claims rejected. The defendant made two tender offers during the litigation process, first on 13 March 2019 and then the day after the trial commenced. The plaintiff commenced trial in person without legal representation on 29 November 2022. The current judgment addresses the costs of these proceedings following the main judgment delivered on 16 October 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs given the defendant’s tender offers and the outcome of the damages awarded.
2. The appropriate period and scale for costs to be awarded to the plaintiff and defendant respectively.
3. The application and discretion of the Court regarding differential costs orders in light of statutory provisions and case law.
4. Whether the plaintiff was justified in commencing and prosecuting the proceedings in the High Court rather than a lower court.
5. The effect of the parties’ agreement not to apportion liability on costs and the timing of costs awards.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that special cause existed to depart from the usual rule on costs due to the necessity of having the three sets of proceedings heard together, a procedure initiated by the plaintiff’s previous counsel.
• The plaintiff argued that the complexity and overlap of claims justified the proceedings being in the High Court.
• Submissions were made regarding the application of tenders and the effect of a Calderbank letter on costs.

Defendant's Arguments

• The defendant relied on the statutory entitlement to costs from the time the tender was made, as per Order 22(6)(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
• The defendant contended that no special cause was shown to depart from the costs rule and that the plaintiff’s discharge of solicitors and procedural conduct justified the defendant’s entitlement to costs from a later date.
• The defendant argued that costs after 28 July 2022, including those for the protracted trial, should be paid by the plaintiff.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by affirming the statutory foundation for awarding costs, referencing relevant provisions of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and the Rules of the Superior Courts. It noted the defendant’s tender offers and the rule that a defendant is entitled to costs from the time a tender is made unless special cause is shown. The plaintiff’s argument of special cause based on the necessity to hear the three proceedings together was rejected, as the defendants’ rights to litigate damages individually were preserved.

The Court considered whether the plaintiff’s decision to bring the claim in the High Court was justified. It found that given the complexity and the initially uncertain quantum of damages, the plaintiff was reasonably justified in prosecuting in the High Court at least until the tender date. The Court applied the principle from Moin v. Sicika regarding differential costs orders, concluding that since the ultimate damages awarded were within the Circuit Court jurisdiction, a differential costs order was appropriate.

The Court further analyzed the timeline of costs entitlement, awarding the plaintiff costs on the Circuit Court scale up to 10 April 2019 (28 days after the tender), and awarding the defendant costs from 28 July 2022, the date when the trial was assigned following the plaintiff’s discharge of solicitors. It excluded costs related to a specific s. 26 application, which the plaintiff unsuccessfully pursued belatedly. The Court took a pragmatic approach to avoid protracted costs disputes and allowed for adjudication in default of agreement.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision is as follows:

• The plaintiff shall recover €13,262.50 from the defendant.
• The plaintiff is entitled to costs on the Circuit Court scale with a certificate for senior counsel up to and including 10 April 2019.
• The defendant is entitled to recover costs from the plaintiff from 28 July 2022 up to and including 30 July 2024, excluding costs for the s. 26 application.
• No order for costs is made for the period 11 April 2019 to 27 July 2022 or for the costs hearing on 12 February 2025.
• All costs are to be adjudicated in default of agreement.
• No payment of the €13,262.50 damages to the plaintiff shall be made until all costs have been agreed or adjudicated, with the defendant entitled to offset costs awarded.

The decision enforces the statutory framework governing costs and illustrates the Court’s discretion in applying differential costs orders where damages fall within lower court jurisdiction. It also underscores the importance of tender offers and procedural conduct in determining costs entitlement. No new precedent was established; the ruling clarifies the application of existing principles to complex multi-accident litigation with tender offers and procedural irregularities.