Irish Press Plc v Ingersoll Irish Publications Ltd (No. 3)

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeBLAYNEY J.,BLAYNEY J
Judgment Date28 July 1995
Neutral Citation1995 WJSC-SC 2515
Date28 July 1995
CourtSupreme Court

1995 WJSC-SC 2515

THE SUPREME COURT

Hamilton C.J.

Egan J.

Blayney J.

117/223-94
IRISH PRESS PLC v. INGERSOLL IRISH PUBLICATIONS (COSTS)
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACTS 1963– 1990
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 205 OF THE
COMPANIES ACT 1963
AND IN THE MATTER OF IRISH PRESS NEWSPAPERS
LIMITED AND IRISH PRESS PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
BETWEEN/
IRISH PRESS PLC
Petitioner/Respondent

and

INGERSOLL IRISH PUBLICATIONS LIMITED
Respondent/Appellant

Synopsis:

PRACTICE

Costs

Appeal - Appellant - Success - Limitation - Appellant and respondent partially successful - Parties to appeal to bear their own costs - (117,223/94 - Supreme Court - 28/7/95)

|Irish Press Plc. v. Ingersoll Irish Publications Ltd.|

1

JUDGMENT delivered on the 28th day of July 1995 by BLAYNEY J. [NEM DISS]

2

When the Court gave judgment in this appeal, the issue of costs was adjourned to a later date.

3

On the 14th June 1995 the Court heard the submissions of Mr. Gordon, on behalf of Ingersoll Irish Publications Ltd. (IIP) and a week later the submissions of Mr. Allen on behalf of Irish Press Plc.

4

What the Court has to consider is the appropriate order to make in regard to costs in three separate hearings:

5

1. The hearing of the petition for oppression brought by Irish Press plc. This hearing took thirty-eight days.

6

2. The hearing for the purpose of assessing the damages to which Irish Press Plc had been held to be entitled, and for the purpose of fixing the price to be paid by Irish Press Plc for IIP's shares in Irish Press Newspapers Limited and Irish Press Publications Limited. This hearing lasted fourteen days.

7

3. The hearing of the appeal in this Court, which was preceded by an application for a stay brought by IIP, and an application for security for costs brought by Irish Press Plc.

8

Mr. Gordon submitted that IIP should be entitled to the costs of all three hearings. He argued that the main relief which Irish Press Plc had obtained on the hearing of the petition - an order directing IIP to transfer their shares to them - had not been sought until the thirty third day of the hearing when Irish Press Plc were permitted to amend their petition in order to claim it. He said that his clients had in fact indicated their willingness to sell their shares to Irish Press Plc before the proceedings began and that the Court should take this into account in exercising its discretion.

9

As regards the hearing to assess the damages and fix the price of the shares, he submitted that since the order for the payment of damages had been set aside, his clients should get their costs of such hearing.

10

Finally, as regards the costs of the appeal, he submitted that his clients were entitled to these by reason of the Court having set aside the High Court order directing the payment of damages.

11

Mr. Allen's overall submission was to the same effect as Mr. Gordon's. He submitted that Irish Press Plc should be entitled to the costs of all three hearings.

12

As regards the hearing of the petition, his principal submission was brief and direct. The petition had been successful and so costs should follow the event. The learned trial judge had found oppression; had set aside the management agreement, which was the relief they sought initially, and had in addition directed IIP to sell their shares to Irish Press Plc. He submitted that there was no reality in the offer which IIP had made to sell their shares to Irish Press Plc in June 1992.

13

In regard to the hearing to assess the damages and to fix the price of IIP's shares, Mr. Allen submitted that this was necessitated by the finding of oppression. Because of that finding, the shares had to be valued, and accordingly he said his clients were entitled to the costs.

14

Finally, he submitted that Irish Press Plc were entitled to the costs of the hearing in this Court because IIP had withdrawn their appeal against the finding of oppression, and had failed in their appeal to have the value of the shares increased.

15

The submissions on both sides were very much more detailed than the outline I have given, and I have considered all of them in arriving at my conclusion as to how the discretion of the Court should be exercised.

16

In my opinion Irish Press Plc are entitled to retain the order for costs made in their favour at the conclusion of the initial hearing of the petition before Barron J. I am satisfied that the learned High Court judge properly exercised his discretion in allowing them their costs and I see no reason for making any change in his order. The principal issue on the petition was that of oppression which was decided in the petitioner's favour, and the appeal against this finding was withdrawn.

17

As regards the other two hearings, it seems to me that each party could justifiably claim that they were entitled to part of the costs. As regards the hearing to assess the damages and fix the prices of shares, IIP could claim the costs of assessing the damages, since the award of damages was subsequently set aside, and Irish Press Plc could claim the costs relating to the fixing of the price of IIP's shares. As regards the hearing in this Court, IIP could claim the costs of having the award of damages set aside, and Irish Press Plc could claim the costs of the oppression issue, in respect of which the appeal was withdrawn, and also the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • S.J. v Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 13 December 2017
    ...63, Lancefort Limited v. An Bord Pleanála [1998] 2 I.R. 511, Fallon v. An Bord Pleanála [1992] 2 I.R. 380, Irish Press v. Ingersoll [1995] 1 ILRM 117, Ashbourne Holdings v. An Bord Pleanála (Kearns J., 19th June, 2001, Unreported) and Arklow Holidays Limited v. An Bord Pleanála (Clarke J......
  • Dunnes Stores v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 26 May 2016
    ...by Trinity College of student halls in Dartry, McKechnie J.notes the observation in the judgment of Finlay C.J. in Irish Press plc v. Ingersoll Irish Publications Ltd. [1995] 1 I.L.R.M. 117, 120, that a point of law purported to arise in an application such as that now presenting has to be ......
  • D.E. v C.D.
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 10 July 2015
    ...2.2): 'It is clear from both Redmond v. Ireland & Anor [1992] 2 I.R. 362 and Irish Press Plc v. Ingersoll Irish Publications Limited [1995] 1 I.L.R.M. 117 that, in general terms, two broad issues will ordinarily arise for consideration in relation to whether a stay should be placed on an o......
  • Arklow Holidays Ltd v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 29 March 2006
    ...[2003] 2 IR 63; Lancefort Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [1998] 2IR 511; Fallon v An Bord Pleanála [1992] 2IR 380; Irish Press v Ingersoll [1995] 1ILRM 117; Ashbourne Holdings v An Bord Pleanála (Unrep, Kearns J, 19/6/2001) and Arklow Holidays Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 102 (Unrep, Clarke ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT