Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Order for security for costs upheld in competition proceedings
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal: (i) dismisses appeal and upholds decision of the High Court to make an order for security for costs in proceedings involving a claim by the appellant that the respondent is abusing a dominant position in the Irish whiskey market, on the grounds that: (a) the appellants' argument that they may rely on wrongdoing alleged against the respondent outside the scope of the proceedings was inconsistent with case law and legal principle; (b) the trial judge was correct that the appellants had failed to establish that their inability to pay the costs was due to the wrongdoing of the respondent on the basis of prima facie evidence; and (c) the trial judge was correct to hold that the appellants had failed to meet the high threshold required to show that there was a point of law or issue of public importance which would justify the refusal of the order; and (ii) uses its discretion to de novo fix the sum to be provided for security at €1 million and holds that the proceedings will be stayed pending the provision of the security.
Costello J (nem diss): Appeal against a decision of the High Court making an order that the appellants provide security for costs in the amount of €1 million and staying the proceedings in default of providing security - the substantive proceedings involve a claim by the appellant that the respondent is abusing their dominant position in the Irish whiskey market - whether the trial judge had erred in concluding that the appellant had adduced no evidence that satisfied the test for impecuniosity - whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the proceedings did not give rise to points of law or issues of exceptional public importance - whether the trial judge erred in fixing the amount without hearing submissions on the matter - whether the trial judge erred in fixing the amount at €1million - order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - both appellants are companies incorporated outside the State - the legal principles applicable to s. 52 of the Companies Act 2014 applied - appeal dismissed - Court criticises the brevity of the trial judge's judgment - Court declines to find that the trial judge erred in not affording the parties an opportunity to present their case in relation to the amount that security should be fixed at - Court exercises its discretion and de novo assess the sum for security at €1million.
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.
