European Fashion Products Ltd and Others v Eenkhoorn and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 21 December 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] IEHC 181
• Date: 21 December 2001
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 5859p/00

[2001] IEHC 181

THE HIGH COURT

5859p/00

EUROPEAN FASHION PRODUCTS LTD & ORS v. EENKHOORN & ORS

BETWEEN

EUROPEAN FASHION PRODUCTS LIMITED, ROBERT MURA AND DAVID MURA

PLAINTIFFS

AND

RUDOLPH THEODOOR EENKHOORN, ROLF VAN MEGEN, IEP INTERNATIONAL FASHION PRODUCTS LLC, PAUL GARDNER TRADING AS P. & P. CONSULTANTS AND THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

PITT V BOLGER 1996 1 IR 108

MAHER V PHELAN 1996 1 IR 95

PROETTA V NEIL 1996 1 IR 100

RSC O.29

MUND & FESTER V HATREX 1994 EUR 467

Synopsis:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Security for costs

Discovery -- Order joining third parties - Litigation - Whether appropriate to grant orders sought - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 Order 29 (2000/5859 P - Barr J - 21/12/2001)

European Fashion Products Ltd v Eenkhoorn

Facts: The first defendant (“the applicant”), a lay litigant, brought the present application seeking an order joining five proposed third parties to the action; an order for security for costs and an order for discovery of documents by all plaintiffs. The applicant contended that by reason of alleged wrongdoing by the second and third plaintiffs which was the subject-matter of the action he no longer had sufficient funds to provide professional representation. The applicant sought security for costs against the personal plaintiffs on the basis that the personal plaintiffs were Dutch citizens resident in Holland and, therefore, within the ambit of the Superior Court rules and secondly that the second and third plaintiffs appeared to have hidden substantial personal assets with a view to frustrating the defendants in the event that they obtained an order for costs against them.

Held by Mr. Justice Barr in making the following orders. The applicant had not furnished sufficient information to enable the court to decide whether or not to sanction the joining of the proposed or any third parties. The joining of the proposed third parties would add very greatly to the total costs of the action. Accordingly this part of the motion was adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter. EU citizens had the same status as Irish citizens vis-à-vis security for costs which were not within Order 29. Previous caselaw had made it clear that orders for security for costs under Order 29 could be obtained only against plaintiffs who were resident outside the EU. The defendants were not entitled to orders for security for costs against the personal plaintiffs. The documents for which discovery was sought were prima facie discoverable as having apparent relevance to issues raised in the action. The applicant was entitled to an order for discovery of documents against all three plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT delivered by

Mr. Justice Barr

1 on the 21st day of December, 2001 .

2 The first defendant, Mr. Eenkhoorn has sought interim orders under three headings, i.e. an Order joining five proposed third parties to the action; an Order for security for costs and an Order for discovery of documents by all plaintiffs.

3 Mr. Eenkhoorn has no legal representation and conducted the application on his own behalf. He contends that by reason of alleged wrongdoing by the second and third plaintiffs which is the subject-matter of the action, including the counterclaim, he no longer has sufficient funds to provide professional representation. The issues between the parties are complex and the motion entailed the introduction of a substantial range of documents and extensive affidavits. Mr. Eenkhoorn is not a lawyer and has understandable difficulty in comprehending and complying with rules of procedure. I have no doubt he has done his best to do so and it would be unfair and unreasonable...