ACE Autobody Ltd v Motorpark Ltd & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This ruling concerns costs following the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment (12 November 2025) dismissing an appeal by the Defendant/Appellant against an order of the High Court. The High Court had dismissed the Defendant/Appellant’s appeal from a Circuit Court order granting relief to the Plaintiff/Respondent. The present ruling addresses the appropriate costs orders across the Supreme Court, High Court, and Circuit Court stages, under s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under s. 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, there were “special circumstances” justifying departure from the default rule that costs follow the event in respect of the Supreme Court appeal.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should vacate or vary the costs orders made in the Circuit Court and High Court.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff/Respondent's Arguments

• The Plaintiff/Respondent was entirely successful in the Supreme Court appeal and at each prior stage, so it was prima facie entitled to costs in all courts under s. 169(1) of the 2015 Act.
• Departing from the default “costs follow the event” position requires clearly identified, weighty circumstances, exercised on a reasoned basis rationally connected to the facts.
• The case was not properly characterised as a test case or public interest litigation: the State was not a party, no public law relief was sought, and leave was granted on a specific private-law issue (whether a settlement agreement created an estoppel precluding reliance on the Statute of Limitations).
• In private disputes the Court should be slow to displace the norm; the costs orders below should remain undisturbed; the Defendant/Appellant should pay the costs of the Supreme Court appeal.

Defendant/Appellant's Arguments

• The Defendant/Appellant accepted the default position ordinarily favoured the successful party, but argued special circumstances justified departure from the usual rule.
• The Court should adopt a broad, non-technical assessment of what is just in the case and should not take an “overly meticulous approach” to costs allocation.
• Although the norm is not usually departed from in private-party litigation, this case was distinguishable because the appeal involved limitation/extinguishment issues of general importance and complexity, and/or arose from unclear legislation.
• Clarification of important or uncertain points of law can justify departure from the default rule; there was a paucity of authority in this area, and the judgment would have wider relevance and be of material assistance to the Plaintiff/Respondent in comparable mortgage possession litigation.
• The Defendant/Appellant sought (i) his costs of the Supreme Court appeal, or alternatively (ii) no order as to costs of the Supreme Court appeal, and (iii) vacatur of all prior costs orders (including no order as to costs in the Circuit Court and revisiting/vacating High Court costs).

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court approached costs on the basis that the Plaintiff/Respondent was entirely successful in the Supreme Court appeal, so the default position under s. 169(1) of the 2015 Act applied unless special circumstances justified departure. Applying the principles identified in the cited authorities (particularly Little), the Court considered whether a reasoned basis existed to depart from the norm.

The Court accepted that the appeal raised issues of real complexity and general importance, and that the substantive judgment provided clarificatory guidance likely to assist beyond the present dispute, including being of practical benefit to the Plaintiff/Respondent in comparable cases. Those features were held sufficient to justify departing from the default position for the costs of the Supreme Court appeal.

However, the Court stressed that this was an appeal-specific exercise of discretion under s. 169(1) and did not reclassify the proceedings as public interest litigation or as a test case in a strict sense. As to the lower courts, the Court noted that the Defendant/Appellant was unsuccessful in the Circuit Court and on appeal to the High Court, and that the High Court expressly affirmed the Circuit Court costs order and awarded the Plaintiff/Respondent its High Court costs. The Court was not satisfied that the circumstances relied upon justified depriving the successful party of its costs in the Circuit Court, nor was it persuaded that the High Court costs order should be vacated or varied.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The Supreme Court maintained the costs orders in the Circuit Court and High Court in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent, but made no order as to the costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The direct effect is that the Plaintiff/Respondent remains entitled to its costs in the Circuit Court and High Court as previously ordered, while neither party recovers Supreme Court appeal costs from the other. The Court treated the outcome as a discretionary, appeal-specific departure based on the importance, complexity, and clarificatory value of the issues, without characterising the case as public interest litigation or a test case and without stating that any new precedent on costs was being established beyond the application of existing principles.