Action Alarms Ltd Trading as Action Security Systems v Emmet O'Rafferty and Top Security Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 06 May 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IEHC 250
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2014 No. 3292 P]

Between

Action Alarms Limited Trading as Action Security Systems

Plaintiff

and

Emmet O'Rafferty and Top Security Limited

Defendants

[2022] IEHC 250

[2014 No. 3292 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Costs – Modification – Contract – Plaintiff seeking costs – Whether costs should be against both defendants

Facts: The High Court (Humphreys J), in Action Alarms v O’Rafferty (No. 1) [2021] IEHC 779, dealt with the mode of trial of the proceedings. In Action Alarms v O’Rafferty (No. 2) [2022] IEHC 33, Humphreys J made an award in favour of the plaintiff, Action Alarms Ltd, against the second defendant, Top Security Ltd. An issue arose in relation to costs – the issue being whether costs should be against both defendants or only as against the second defendant.

Held by Humphreys J that the primary reason that it was appropriate only to award costs against the second defendant was that the only relief granted was against the second defendant. The plaintiff complained that the first defendant, Mr O’Rafferty, caused costs to be incurred by denying the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant, but it seemed to Humphreys J that the admission or otherwise of such a contract was primarily up to the second defendant itself. Humphreys J held that there was never any basis for suggesting that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant, and the only relief that could have been relevant in relation to the first defendant was the claim for equitable relief. However, as noted in the No. 2 judgment, Humphreys J did not need to decide that because he found in favour of the plaintiff on the contractual issue. Thus, Humphreys J held that the appropriate order was no order as to costs against the first defendant on the basis that the contractual claim was the only part of the claim that Humphreys J had to decide.

Humphreys J made an order on 6th April, 2022 that: (i) the draft order prepared by the parties be perfected with the modification that costs would be awarded only against the second defendant; (ii) there would be no order as to costs against the first defendant on the basis that the contractual issue was the only issue that had to be decided; and (iii) it be noted that the defendants accept that there were no costs incurred on behalf of the first defendant and beyond those incurred on behalf of the second defendant.

Costs awarded against second defendant.

(No. 3)

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday the 6th day of May, 2022

1 In Action Alarms v. O'Rafferty (No. 1) [2021] IEHC 779, ( [2021] 12 JIC 2108 Unreported, High Court, 21st December, 2021), I dealt with the mode of trial of the proceedings.

2 In Action Alarms v. O'Rafferty (No. 2) [2022] IEHC 33, ( [2022] 2 JIC 0403 Unreported, High Court, 4th February, 2022), I made an award in favour of the plaintiff against the second defendant.

3 An issue has arisen in relation to costs. I dealt with that on 6th April, 2022 in an ex tempore ruling, and, as the matter is being appealed, I now take the opportunity to provide a written statement of the reasons I gave on that occasion.

4 The parties helpfully agreed almost all of the terms of a draft order as follows:

“(i) That there be judgment as against the Second Defendant in the amount of €148,324.89 made up as follows:

(a) damages for breach of...