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, in an action against ten defendants concerning a development completed in 2006, where fire safety defects were discovered in 2018: (a) directs that the plaintiff management company provide security for costs in respect of two defendants, on the grounds that the defendants had a prima facie defence on the limitation period, the management company had failed to establish that it could levy the necessary funds from its members, and there were no special circumstances arising from public interest to justify the refusal of security; (b) directs that the plaintiff provide security in the sum of over €500,000 in respect of each of the two defendants, 50% forthwith and the balance prior to notice of trial; and (c) refuses an application by the plaintiff to 'invite' the parties to attend mediation where the replies to particulars had been uninformative, and where mediation seemed premature.
Construction - fire safety defects in development - residential and commercial - completed in 2006 - investigations in 2018 - discovery of defects - cost of remedy in region of €9 million - claim by management company against persons involved in development - security for costs - invitation to mediation - no contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendants - plaintiff unable to identify which defendants responsible for fire defects - under s.52 of the Companies Act, 2014 - whether company able to pay costs of defendants - whether prima facie defence to claim - special circumstances to justify refusal - 'least risk of injustice' - “public interest special circumstances” - whether management company could raise relevant funds by imposing a 'levy' on members - s.18 (4) of the Multi Unit Development Act 2011 - uncertainty of plaintiff's levy proposal - special circumstances - amount of security - €530K in respect of each defendant - phasing of security - 50% at first, balance prior to notice of trial - whether motion for mediation was premature - uninformative replies to particulars.
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