High Court, in proceedings whereby the court refused to dismiss for delay a claim by a trustee of a pension fund against accountants for alleged misrepresentation of a debt due to a company, which the plaintiff claimed to have relied upon in making an investment decision, makes an order for the plaintiff's the costs and refuses to grant a stay on the costs order, on the grounds that it was not in the interests of justice in circumstances where the defendants failed to meet any of the 3 limbs of the Primor ‘test’ and where the plaintiff invited the defendant to withdraw the motion.
Costs of legal proceedings - claim by a trustee of a pension fund against accountants for alleged misrepresentation of a debt due to a company - defendants unsuccessful in application to dismiss claim - on grounds delay inordinate or inexcusable - plaintiff argues costs follow the event - s. 169 (1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 - Order 99, Rule 3(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts - defendants don't contest costs but seek a stay on costs order - stay within court's discretion - granting a stay would facilitate a “netting off” exercise in the future - whether in interests of justice - court notes plaintiff asked defendant to withdraw motion - and for all parties to bear their own costs - court further notes defendants failed to meet any of the 3 limbs of the Primor ‘test’ - limited stay provided in event of appeal of costs judgment.