Moorview Development Ltd v First Active Plc

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice William M. McKechnie
Judgment Date27 July 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] IESC 33
CourtSupreme Court
Docket Number[S.C. No. 213 of 2011],[Appeal No. 213/2011]
Date27 July 2018
Between /
MOORVIEW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, SALTHILL PROPERTIES LIMITED, VALEBROOK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED, SPRINGSIDE PROPERTIES LIMITED, DRAKE S.C. LIMITED, MALLDRO S.C. LIMITED, THE POPPINTREE MALL LIMITED

and

BLONDON PROPERTIES LIMITED
Plaintiffs/Notice Parties
-AND-
FIRST ACTIVE PLC, RAY JACKSON and, by order, BERNARD DUFFY
Defendants/Respondents

AND

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

[2018] IESC 33

McKechnie J.

McKechnie J.

MacMenamin J.

Dunne J.

[Appeal No. 213/2011]

[High Court Record No. 2003/9018 P]

THE SUPREME COURT

Costs – Non-party – Jurisdiction – Appellant seeking to set aside an order of the High Court making him liable for costs – Whether there existed a jurisdiction to make costs orders against a non-party

Facts: The appellant, Mr Cunningham, appealed to the Supreme Court against an order of the High Court (Clarke J) made and perfected in April, 2011, making him liable for the costs incurred by the first defendant/respondent, First Active plc, in defending the action brought by the plaintiffs, Moorview Developments Ltd, Salthill Properties Ltd, Valebrook Developments Ltd, Springside Properties Ltd, Drake S.C. Ltd, Malldro S.C. Ltd, The Poppintree Mall Ltd and Blondon Properties Ltd, on the grounds that he funded the litigation. The appellant denied that he was the funder, denied that the Court had jurisdiction to make such order, and submitted that, even if it did have such jurisdiction, it was exercised wrongly in this case. Two major issues arose for the consideration of the Court. The first was whether there existed a jurisdiction to make costs orders against a non-party. The second question concerned the factors which are relevant to the exercise of that jurisdiction both generally and on the facts of this case in particular.

Held by McKechnie J that Clarke J had jurisdiction to make an order for costs against Mr Cunningham; said jurisdiction could validly be founded either on Order 15, Rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or s. 53 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877. Moreover, McKechnie J was of the view that the considerations taken into account by the judge in exercising his discretion were entirely appropriate, and that it was just, in all the circumstances of the case, to make an order for costs against the appellant.

McKechnie J held that he would dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie delivered on the 27th day of July, 2018
Introduction
1

This is an appeal by Mr Brian Cunningham ('the appellant'), who is not a party to the proceedings, against an order of the High Court (Clarke J., as he then was) made and perfected in April, 2011, making Mr Cunningham liable for the costs incurred by First Active in defending the action brought by the plaintiff companies, on the grounds that Mr Cunningham funded the litigation. The background to this appeal is lengthy and complicated, involving numerous linked proceedings. In short Mr. Cunningham was made personally liable for costs which arose both in this case (referred to elsewhere as 'Case A') and also a series of other connected cases (Cases C, E and H). The judgment of the High Court explaining the reasons for the making of said non-party costs order was delivered on the 16th March, 2011 ( [2011] I.E.H.C. 117; [2011] 3 I.R. 615). The appellant denies that he was the funder, denies that the Court had jurisdiction to make such order, and submits that, even if it did have such jurisdiction, it was exercised wrongly in this case.

2

The judgment under appeal was a significant one. It is described as 'a landmark development in the law on costs' in the Annual Review of Irish Law (2011, 25(1), p. 521) and as a 'groundbreaking judgment' in Delaney and McGrath, Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts (3rd Ed., Round Hall, Dublin, 2012 at para. 23-124). The judgment was one of the first in this jurisdiction in which an order for costs was made against a non-party, and certainly the first in which a director/shareholder of an insolvent company was made liable for costs incurred in defending proceedings brought by the said company. It has subsequently been followed and applied by the High Court in a number of cases, including Used Car Importers of Ireland Limited v. Minister for Finance & Ors. [2014] I.E.H.C. 256 (Gilligan J.), Nugent Personal Insolvency (Costs) [2016] I.E.H.C. 309 (Baker J.) and W.L. Construction Limited v. Chawke and Bohan [2017] I.E.H.C. 319 (Noonan J.), albeit in the first and final cases mentioned it seems to have been accepted by the parties that the Court had jurisdiction to join a non-party for the purposes of making a costs order against them. Mr Cunningham, however, disputes that this is so, and maintains on this appeal that Clarke J. erred in concluding that he had jurisdiction to make the order sought.

3

Thus two major issues arise for the consideration of this Court. The first is whether there exists a jurisdiction to make costs orders against a non-party. If so, the Court must then consider the second question, which concerns the factors which are relevant to the exercise of that jurisdiction both generally and on the facts of this case in particular. This judgment also addresses a number of subsidiary issues raised by the appellant.

Related Appeal
4

It should be noted at the outset that this appeal was heard together with the related appeal in First Active v. Brian Cunningham, High Court Record No. 2005/272 S. Three issues were raised in that appeal. The first concerned the transfer of the business of First Active plc to Ulster Bank Ireland Limited, and the effect of that transfer on the proceedings. Mr Cunningham has also raised an issue concerning that transfer in this case (see paras. 134-135, infra), although that point can be disposed of for the reasons contained in the judgment of this Court in that related appeal, delivered on the 22nd February, 2018 ( [2018] I.E.S.C. 11). The other two issues addressed in that judgment are not relevant to this appeal: one arose out of the awarding of Courts Act interest by the trial judge and the other concerned the principle of res judicata in the context of a non-suit/direction. However, this judgment should be read together with the judgment in the related appeal, which provides further context to the issues herein discussed.

Background
5

The factual backdrop and procedural history of this case are long and complex. Full details of same can be obtained by reference to the various other judgments which have been delivered by the High Court and by this Court in these proceedings, many of which are referred to over the course of this judgment. Most of the matters raised for consideration in the main and linked proceedings do not fall to be considered here. Nonetheless, some background information is necessary in order to explain how it is that the High Court came to make a non-party costs order against Mr Cunningham. In setting out this background, I will endeavour to distil it down to its essential elements in order to contextualise the legal issues which arise.

6

These proceedings were brought by Brian Cunningham and companies of which he is a director and/or shareholder ('the Cunningham Group' or just 'the companies') against a number of parties, including (i) First Active plc ('the respondent') (now known as Ulster Bank Ireland Limited; see paras. 134-135, infra); (ii) Ray Jackson, a receiver appointed by the respondent to various Cunningham Group companies; and (iii) Bernard Duffy, who purchased certain property formerly owned by the Cunningham Group from the respondent as mortgagee in possession. It is common case that the Cunningham Group companies are grossly insolvent.

7

The Cunningham Group and the respondent had a banking relationship in the course of which the respondent advanced money to the companies, principally for the acquisition and development of certain properties. Over time this relationship deteriorated, resulting in the appointment by the respondent of Mr Jackson as receiver to certain of the companies in April, 2003.

8

The plaintiff companies alleged that the respondent and others had committed a fraud against them. Various proceedings were instituted between 2003 and 2007 in which the companies sought damages from different defendants; ultimately, all such proceedings were unsuccessful. It is beyond this judgment to address the multiplicity of claims made. It will suffice to say that the main issue related to the sale of the Finglas Shopping Centre in Dublin and the financing of a property development at Bailey Point, County Galway. The case made by the plaintiff companies was that after representing that it would fund the project at Bailey Point, First Active refused to do so, thereby preventing the completion of the development, preventing the site from opening and thus causing the companies huge losses. In essence, it was alleged that the respondent had perpetrated a fraud against the companies, in that there was never any intention to continue to support the companies at the time when representations were made that such support would be forthcoming. It was alleged that these actions of the respondent destroyed the financial well-being of the companies.

9

Following a lengthy procedural history, the main proceedings were ultimately at trial before Clarke J. in the High Court for 66 days. At the end of the plaintiffs' evidence, the defendants applied for a non-suit/direction in respect of all claims. On the 15th December, 2008, Clarke J. indicated that he would accede to the application, with his reasons therefor being contained in a comprehensive written judgment delivered on the 6th March, 2009 ( [2009] I.E.H.C. 214). Various ancillary claims were rejected in subsequent judgments delivered by Clarke J. on the 17th July, 2009, the 31st July, 2009, the 5th February, 2010 and the 9th July, 2010. The respondent further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • The Governor and Company of The Bank of Ireland v Eteams (International) Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation)
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 4 Julio 2019
    ...11 Counsel for Bank of Ireland relies also on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Moorview Development Ltd. v. First Active Plc. [2018] IESC 33. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from a decision of Clarke J. by which he made an order that the costs incurred by First Active in ......
  • W.L. Construction Ltd v Chawke
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 2019
    ...of the Irish courts to make them having been confirmed in ( Moorview Developments Limited & ors. v. First Active plc [2011] 3 I.R. 615, [2018] IESC 33). The fundamental basis for the exercise of this jurisdiction was described by McKechnie J. in Moorview as being the injustice which might......
  • Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under Administration) v PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 Marzo 2021
    ...be successfully defended. This situation is further complicated by the recent jurisprudence of this Court in Moorview Development Limited & ors v. First Active Plc & ors [2018] IESC 33, which makes it clear that there is a jurisdiction to award costs against a third party funder in certain......
  • David Dully v Athlone Town Stadium Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 17 Diciembre 2021
    ...orders against non-parties and in particular the decision in Moorview Development Ltd v First Active [2011] IEHC 117, [2011] 3 IR 615; [2018] IESC 33, [2019] 1 IR 417. (3) The orders made were procedurally inappropriate in any event given that Mr. Dully was at all times said to be suing in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Expert Witnesses ' Court Of Appeal Calls For Culture Change
    • Ireland
    • Mondaq Ireland
    • 10 Noviembre 2022
    ...2. See Byrne v O' Connor [2006] IESC 39, [2006] 3 IR 379 and Moorview Development Ltd v First Active [2011] IEHC 117, [2011] 3 IR 615; [2018] IESC 33, [2019] 1 IR 3. [2022] IECA 70. 4. https://www.courts.ie/rules/evidence 5. National Justice Compania Naviera S.A v Prudential Assurance Co. L......

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