Jack F. McCarthy III v Football Association of Ireland and Others
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice Michael White |
Judgment Date | 14 October 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] IEHC 666 |
Date | 14 October 2014 |
Court | High Court |
Docket Number | [No. 11647 P./2012] |
[2014] IEHC 666
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
RSC O.29
DELANY & MCGRATH CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 3ED 2012 CHAP 3
DITT v KROHNE 2012 3 IR 120 2012/9/2519 2012 IEHC 312
Security for costs – Fraudulent inducement to enter a contract – Wrongful actions – Defendants seeking an order for security of costs – Whether the inability to provide security for costs flows from the defendants” wrong
Facts: The plaintiff, Mr McCarthy, served a statement of claim against the defendants, alleging fraudulent inducement to enter a contract to purchase Limerick FC, in November, 2012. The first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI), Mr Delaney, Mr R Smyth, Mr P Smyth and Mr Mooney, did not file their defence. The Legal Director of the FAI in an affidavit sworn in November, 2013, asserted that the plaintiff”s claim against those defendants is without merit and that a full defence would be filed. By way of motion those defendants applied to the High Court for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiff raised the defence that the defendants” wrongful actions had left him unable to provide security for costs as he had no liquid assets. He also stated that he is an Irish citizen with longstanding and deep ties to this jurisdiction. He attempted to commence proceedings in the United States but the US Courts rejected jurisdiction. He denied that the proceedings were frivolous, and asserted he was not insolvent.
Held by White Michael J that, having considered Order 29 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, in an action by an individual plaintiff, the plaintiff must be ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction and must have a prima facie defence on the merits. White Michael J noted that the court also retains a wide discretion and can refuse to order security where there are special circumstances, referring to Ditt v Krohne [2012] 3 IR 120; in addition, where a plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that there is an inability to provide security due to the defendants” wrong, it is unlikely security will be granted.
White Michael J held that the first to fifth defendants had a prima facie defence on the merits; the plaintiff did not have any assets in his own name in the jurisdiction. White Michael J held that the plaintiff had not made out a case that the inability to provide security for costs flows from the first to fifth defendants” wrong and that there were no special circumstances which indicated that the court in its discretion should refuse the order sought. White Michael J granted an order for security for costs and was amenable to have this dealt with by way of an appropriate charge or arrangement in respect of the plaintiff”s property, 8 Herbert Place, Dublin 2, as an alternative to a cash lodgement.
Application granted.
By way of motion the first, second, third, fourth and fifth named Defendants have applied for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff issued a plenary summons on 16th October, 2012, and served a statement of claim on 30th November, 2012.
The first, second, third, fourth and fifth named defendants have not filed their defence. Sarah O'Shea, Legal Director of the FAI in an affidavit sworn on 22nd November, 2013, asserts that the plaintiff's claim against those defendants alleging fraudulent inducement to enter a contract to purchase Limerick FC is without...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greene v Highcross Bars Ltd
...In this regard, the court recalls the decision last year in Jack F. McCarthy III v. Football Association of Ireland and Others [2014] IEHC 666, in which White J. observed, at para. 13: "If residence outside the jurisdiction and impecuniosity are not of themselves the factors which entitle a......