Landmark Differential Costs Order Made Against Plaintiff

DE
Dillon Eustace
Contributor
Dillon Eustace is one of Ireland’s leading law firms focusing on financial services, banking and capital markets, corporate and M&A, litigation and dispute resolution, insurance, real estate and taxation. Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, the firm’s international practice has seen it establish offices in Tokyo (2000), New York (2009) and the Cayman Islands (2012).
The Court of Appeal has today delivered a significant costs ruling in the case of McKeown v Crosby & Anor [2021] IECA 139.
Ireland Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Court of Appeal has today delivered a significant costs ruling in the case of McKeown v Crosby & Anor [2021] IECA 139.

Award of Damages

The principal judgment in this case was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 11 August 2020, in which the plaintiff's award of damages of ?76,000 in the High Court was substantially reduced to ?41,000. You can read more about that judgment in our previous briefing  here.

Issue of Costs

At the beginning of the High Court proceedings, the defendants had indicated their intention to seek a differential costs order should the damages ultimately awarded fall short of the High Court jurisdiction.

Following the High Court hearing, the defendants' solicitors then also issued a "Calderbank" letter (see our previous briefing on the purpose and effect of Calderbank letters  here) offering a sum of ?47,156 plus Circuit Court costs in settlement, subject to certain provisos. That offer was declined by the plaintiff and the defendants issued a notice of appeal. The plaintiff then made a counter-offer or "reverse Calderbank" indicating that they would settle for a sum of ?61,000 plus costs at the High Court level. This was also not accepted and the appeal proceeded.

Judgment

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal agreed with the defendants that there was no basis on which it could exercise its discretion to decline to make a differential costs order in the circumstances. The plaintiff was awarded Circuit Court costs on the basis of the reduced amount of damages of ?41,000, whilst the defendants were awarded both the costs of the appeal and the excess costs incurred by them in defending the case in the High Court.

Commentary

This case represents a cautionary tale for plaintiffs, highlighting the vital importance of ensuring that proceedings are brought at the correct jurisdictional level.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Landmark Differential Costs Order Made Against Plaintiff

Ireland Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Contributor
Dillon Eustace is one of Ireland’s leading law firms focusing on financial services, banking and capital markets, corporate and M&A, litigation and dispute resolution, insurance, real estate and taxation. Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, the firm’s international practice has seen it establish offices in Tokyo (2000), New York (2009) and the Cayman Islands (2012).
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More