High Court — Ruling on Costs and Final Orders (Anonymized)

Factual and Procedural Background

This ruling arises from a previously delivered principal judgment cited as the principal judgment [2025] IEHC 460. The Plaintiffs issued a Civil Bill for well‑charging relief on 22 January 2024. The substantive application came before the High Court in the context of an appeal by the First Named Defendant from an order of the Circuit Court. The principal judgment addressed a number of matters and interlocutory applications associated with that substantive application. The present ruling, delivered by Judge Bradley on 5 November 2025, determines costs and makes final orders arising from the matters that were heard and decided in the principal judgment.

In summary: the Plaintiffs sought recovery of their costs, contending they were entirely successful in the substantive application and related motions. The Plaintiffs also accepted a proposed costs order of 50% for one particular motion. The First Named Defendant opposed the application for costs and sought, in various notices of motion, reliefs that the Judge ultimately refused.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiffs should be awarded legal costs in respect of the various motions and the substantive Civil Bill for well‑charging relief heard and decided in the principal judgment.
2. Whether the court should defer determination of costs and the making of final orders pending the outcome of separate proceedings said to challenge or remove the lis pendens and the judgment mortgage.
3. Whether final substantive orders should be made declaring the Plaintiffs' judgment mortgage to be well‑charged on the subject property, ordering an account of incumbrances and providing for sale of the property in default of payment within a specified period.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Plaintiffs stated they were entirely successful in the substantive application for well‑charging relief and in the related interlocutory motions that were before the Court.
• The Plaintiffs sought recovery of their measured legal costs and accepted a proposed costs order of 50% in respect of one particular motion (the Plaintiffs' motion dated 30 October 2024).

First Named Defendant's Arguments

• The First Named Defendant opposed the Plaintiffs' application for costs.
• His central contention was that the proceedings and positions adopted by the Plaintiffs (including the Civil Bill for Well‑Charging Relief dated 22 January 2024) were predicated on a false premise arising from what he described as a defective lis pendens.
• He argued that determination of the costs ruling and the making of final orders should await the outcome of separate proceedings he has issued to challenge and remove the judgment mortgage and other motions listed for hearing before the Court of Appeal and the High Court on specified dates.
• The First Named Defendant had previously applied to defer delivery of the principal judgment; that application had been refused in the principal judgment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Plaintiff and Plaintiff v. Defendant and Defendant [2025] IEHC 460 (the "principal judgment")	Identified in the ruling as the principal judgment which addressed the interlocutory and substantive matters before the Court and set out proposed cost orders and substantive findings.	The present ruling arises from and implements the findings and proposed orders in that principal judgment, including costs orders and substantive well‑charging relief; the Judge adopts and gives effect to the proposed orders set out in that judgment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Judge explained the procedural posture: the present ruling is a costs and final orders ruling flowing from the principal judgment. The First Named Defendant had sought that determination of costs and final orders be deferred because of separate proceedings challenging the lis pendens and the judgment mortgage. The Judge recalled that an earlier application to defer delivery of the principal judgment had been refused and considered that similar considerations applied.

The Judge concluded it was appropriate to address costs for the matters that were heard and decided before him. He proceeded to deal with each application heard in the principal judgment individually, applying the legal framework expressly referenced in the opinion:

• The Judge applied Order 61, rule 12 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (RSC 1986) concerning adjudication by the County Registrar in the event of disagreement as to measured legal costs.
• The Judge applied sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 as statutory authority for orders as to recovery of measured legal costs.

The Judge's specific analyses and outcomes for the principal interlocutory matters were:

1. Plaintiffs' motion to extend time and to vary parts of the Circuit Court order (dated 24 July 2024): the Judge indicated a provisional view (recorded in the principal judgment) to award the Plaintiffs 50% of the measured legal costs of that application against the First Named Defendant, to be agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar, given the context of a de novo rehearing and certain differences between earlier letters of August and October 2024. The Judge acceded to the Plaintiffs' application and made a formal order to that effect.
2. First Named Defendant's notice of motion dated 30 October 2024 seeking permission to respond to voluminous documents and further discovery: for reasons set out in paragraphs 25–47 of the principal judgment the reliefs were refused. Because the Plaintiffs were entirely successful in opposing that motion, the Judge ordered that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover measured legal costs against the First Named Defendant (to be agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar) pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
3. First Named Defendant's further motion dated 30 October 2024 seeking to set aside a High Court order and to take up a transcript of the DAR: for reasons given at paragraphs 51–58 of the principal judgment, relief was refused. The Judge ordered the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover measured legal costs against the First Named Defendant (to be agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar).
4. First Named Defendant's notice of motion dated 13 November 2024 seeking removal of the judgment mortgage: for reasons at paragraphs 61–66 of the principal judgment, that application was refused. The Judge ordered the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover measured legal costs against the First Named Defendant (to be agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar).
5. First Named Defendant's notice of motion dated 28 January 2025 seeking extensions and directions as to materials: for reasons at paragraphs 70–83 of the principal judgment, the reliefs were refused. The Judge ordered the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover measured legal costs against the First Named Defendant (to be agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar).
6. On the substantive Civil Bill for well‑charging relief dated 22 January 2024 (the de novo rehearing of the Circuit Court order of 24 July 2024): for reasons set out in paragraphs 121–204 of the principal judgment, the Judge made a sequence of substantive orders (described below) including declaring the Plaintiffs' judgment mortgage to stand well‑charged on the subject property, ordering an account of incumbrances and providing for sale by the Registrar in default of payment within a six‑month period. Because the Plaintiffs were entirely successful, the Judge ordered that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover measured legal costs and certain reserved legal costs, the latter to include costs of prior applications to defer the principal judgment and the present costs application.

Finally, the Judge exercised discretion to stay execution of the orders requiring account and potential sale for a period of six months from the date of perfection of the order.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court made multiple final orders in accordance with the principal judgment and awarded costs to the Plaintiffs against the First Named Defendant. The substantive orders include a declaration that the Plaintiffs' judgment mortgage stands well‑charged on the subject property and provision for enforcement steps (including sale) in the event of non‑payment within six months, subject to a stay of execution for six months from perfection.

Specific holdings (as expressed in the ruling)

• The Plaintiffs are awarded 50% of the measured legal costs in respect of their motion to extend time and vary parts of the Circuit Court order, as may be agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar (pursuant to O.61 r.12 RSC 1986).
• The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover measured legal costs against the First Named Defendant in respect of the several notices of motion brought by the First Named Defendant (including motions dated 30 October 2024, 13 November 2024 and 28 January 2025), as may be agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar, pursuant to sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and O.61 r.12 RSC 1986.
• The Court declared the Plaintiffs' judgment mortgage to be well‑charged on the relevant property in respect of the judgments obtained by the Plaintiffs by order of the Court of Appeal on 25 May 2023 (as amended on 26 July 2023) in stated sums, and ordered an account of incumbrances and enquiries as to priorities under the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.
• In default of discharge of the judgment debt within six months, the Registrar shall take steps to effect sale and distribute proceeds to satisfy the Plaintiffs' judgment mortgage pursuant to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009; execution of those orders is stayed for six months from perfection.
• The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reserved legal costs including costs of the First Named Defendant's prior applications to defer the principal judgment and the present costs application; those reserved costs are to be measured and agreed or adjudicated by the County Registrar.

Implications

Direct effect on the parties:

• The Plaintiffs will be able to recover measured legal costs from the First Named Defendant as described in the orders; where agreement cannot be reached those costs will be adjudicated by the County Registrar of The County.
• The Plaintiffs' judgment mortgage has been declared to stand well‑charged on the subject property; the Defendants must discharge the judgment debt and interest within six months or face steps by the Registrar to sell the property to satisfy the debt, subject to the six‑month stay of execution.
• The First Named Defendant's applications to set aside orders, to obtain additional discovery or to remove the judgment mortgage were refused by the Court in the rulings reflected in this judgment.

Broader precedent or jurisprudential implications: The opinion does not state that a new legal principle or binding precedent beyond the application of existing rules and statutes was established. The ruling implements the principal judgment and applies established procedural rules (RSC 1986, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and relevant provisions of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 and Courts Act 1981) to the facts before the Court.

Ruling delivered by Judge Bradley on 5 November 2025. All proper names and identifying particulars have been anonymized in this summary in accordance with the instructions provided.