Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court rules on costs of interlocutory motion and counter-motion, finding that: (a) the plaintiff was entitled to 25% of its costs of its own motion as against the first defendant, where, although the plaintiff's application to have the counterclaim struck out was refused, the court had found that the counterclaim was deficient and required particularisation and, further, where the plaintiff had succeeded in obtaining an order for a modular trial whereby only the plaintiff's claim would be heard in the first module; and (b) the plaintiff was entitled to all its costs of the first defendant's counter-motion where the first defendant did not succeed in having the claim stayed or in obtaining an order for a modular trial in which the counterclaim was to be heard first.
Judgment dealing with costs of interlocutory applications and making directions for the future conduct of the proceedings - plaintiff had initiated proceedings accusing defendants of 'screen scraping' plaintiff's flight data - first defendant made counterclaim alleging plaintiff's abuse of a dominant position in the market - plaintiff brought application to have counterclaim struck out - in the alternative plaintiff sought to have counterclaim stayed or directions for a modular trial with its claim to be determined first - first defendant brought counter motion seeking to have the plaintiff's claim stayed or a modular trial with the counterclaim determined first - court refused the application to strike out counterclaim but found that counterclaim was insufficiently pleaded and would require particularisation in a number of areas to be saved - court ordered that there should be a modular trial, with liability for the plaintiff's claim decided in the first module - argument on whether immediate orders should be heard after the first module to then be heard if plaintiff is successful - whether plaintiff entitled to costs of its motion, notwithstanding that primary relief was refused, where High Court had found that the counterclaim as currently pleaded was deficient - whether first defendant entitled to costs - court invoked case management provisions in RSC but will not set down detailed timetable until further particulars of counterclaim are furnished.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now