Corcoran v Eassda Group Ltd & Ors, Fennell v Corcoran & Anor, Cororan & Anor v Promontoria & Anor [No.2] (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment arises from a series of related proceedings involving the Plaintiff and the Defendants concerning disputes over property transactions and related contractual obligations at Glenair Manor Estate. In December 2024, the court delivered a substantive judgment addressing a wide range of issues between the parties. Subsequent hearings addressed outstanding matters including costs, the form of the court order, and an application to appoint a receiver to certain open space within the estate. Correspondence from the local authority was provided regarding the receiver appointment application. The Plaintiff had previously failed to complete a purchase as ordered by a prior court order, which was a central issue in the dispute. The current judgment resolves the costs issue, the receiver appointment application, and disputes about the form of the court order, while leaving one matter regarding the return of deposits to be determined later.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the successful party is entitled to recover costs in full or whether costs should not follow the event due to alleged inequities or conduct under s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
2. The proper form of the court order reflecting the decisions made in the plenary proceedings and motions.
3. The appointment of a receiver over specified open space at Glenair Manor Estate.
4. Whether the court should decide on the return of deposits paid under contracts found to be at an end.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that awarding costs against them would be inequitable and unjust, citing various expenses incurred including the cost of acquiring a prior judgment, property upgrades, and the potential loss of deposits.
• The Plaintiff contended that the Defendants would profit unfairly from improvements made to the property.
• The Plaintiff challenged the conduct of the Defendants, alleging improper behaviour in document delivery, evidence presentation, and appointment of receivers.
• The Plaintiff requested the court to decide on the return of deposits paid, asserting this issue was consequential to the judgment that contracts were at an end.

Defendants' Arguments

• The Defendants submitted that they were entirely successful and thus entitled to full costs under the ordinary rule that costs follow the event.
• They argued that the Plaintiff’s adverse financial consequences resulted solely from the Plaintiff’s refusal to comply with a prior court order to complete the purchase.
• The Defendants maintained that the Plaintiff’s complaints about their conduct were unfounded and did not justify departing from the ordinary costs rule.
• They opposed any determination on the return of deposits within the current proceedings, noting no claim for such relief was pleaded and that separate proceedings were ongoing.
• The Defendants emphasized adherence to procedural rules limiting the court’s jurisdiction to issues properly raised in the pleadings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by addressing the costs issue, applying the statutory framework under s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 which generally mandates that costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise after considering conduct and reasonableness. The court reviewed the Plaintiff’s allegations of inappropriate conduct by the Defendants and found them unsubstantiated or more appropriate for appeal rather than costs determination. The Plaintiff’s financial losses were attributed to their own failure to comply with a prior court order, negating equitable reasons to depart from the ordinary costs rule.

Regarding the form of the order, the court emphasized the need for accuracy in reflecting how the plenary proceedings and motions were decided—primarily on oral evidence, documents properly admitted, and affidavits. The court rejected attempts to introduce unpleaded issues, particularly concerning the return of deposits, citing jurisdictional limits and procedural fairness. However, the court invited the parties to agree to a focused hearing to resolve the deposit issue, conditioning such a hearing on cooperation and efficiency.

On the application to appoint a receiver over open space at Glenair Manor, the court accepted detailed submissions from the Plaintiff and local authority correspondence, concluding that appointment of a receiver by equitable execution was appropriate. The court imposed specific directions for service of the order on interested parties and provided a period for applications to set aside or vary the order.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

• The Defendants are entitled to recover their costs of the plenary proceedings and the motion to appoint a receiver to no. 6 Glenair Manor, including reserved costs and costs of legal submissions.
• The court order will reflect the basis of decisions as oral evidence, admissible documents, and affidavits according to the nature of the proceedings.
• The court appoints a receiver over the specified open space at Glenair Manor, with directions for service and an opportunity for affected parties to apply to vary or set aside the order.
• The court does not currently decide on the return of deposits but invites the parties to agree on a focused hearing to resolve this issue; absent agreement, a brief ruling will follow.

Implications:

The decision enforces the principle that costs generally follow the event, reinforcing judicial disapproval of conduct that prolongs litigation without justification. The refusal to decide on the deposit return issue without proper pleading preserves procedural fairness and jurisdictional boundaries, while the invitation for a focused hearing offers a practical path to resolution. The appointment of a receiver over open space clarifies property management and rights within the estate, with procedural safeguards for interested parties. No new legal precedent is established; the ruling primarily applies existing principles to the facts of this complex dispute.