No basis for court to depart from normal rule as to costs

Costs of an appeal from the Circuit Court – Defendant successful in appeal – ordinary rule states that Plaintiff would pay Defendant’s costs – Plaintiff argues this shouldn’t be the case and each party should bear own costs – four grounds – ‘test case’ as first judgement of High Court interpreting Section 96 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 – special costs rule in Section 97 applies – unjust to make costs order where Defendant accepts he owes a significant amount in mortgage arrears to Plaintiff – Defendant breached duty of disclosure – not a test case as provisions very clear and had not given rise to debate amongst lawyers – even if it were, neither party is a public authority and thus the ordinary rule would apply anyway – costs rule in Section 97 does not apply to applications under Section 96 – making of costs orders does not serve distributive justice – insufficient nexus between breach of duty of disclosure and appeal proceedings to justify departing from ordinary rule – Court critical of conduct of Plaintiff in the proceedings - costs follow the event – Plaintiff to pay all of the Defendant’s costs, including High Court Appeal.