High Court makes orders for costs in proceedings wherein it dismissed significant portions of a claim against a bank and receivers, finding them to be an abuse of process or estopped due to previous litigation, while other aspects of the claim were not dismissed as they were not bound to fail. The court also stayed the entirety of the proceedings pending an application in the plaintiffs' English bankruptcies, which was not the relief originally sought but was granted based on the facts presented. The defendants were deemed to have achieved a significant degree of success, warranting a costs order in their favour, albeit reduced to 50% to reflect the mixed outcome. The plaintiffs were successful in resisting the dismissal of parts of their claim, and the proceedings were prolonged by points raised by the defendants that were ultimately unsuccessful but were not unreasonable to raise.
Abuse of process, estoppel, bankruptcy, receivers, breach of contract, breach of duty, conspiracy, misrepresentation, negligence, stay of proceedings, English bankruptcies, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, Order 99 Rule 2 and 3 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC), costs order, dismissal, High Court, interlocutory application, res judicata, Henderson v Henderson, unmeritorious points, reasonable to raise, overlapping issues, Chubb European Group SE v The Health Insurance Authority, Veolia Water UK plc v Fingal County Council (No. 2), MD v ND, Connelly v An Bord Pleanála, amendment of pleadings.