Paul Coyle v Declan De Lacy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Haughton J.,Power J.,Collins J.
• Judgment Date: 26 January 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] IECA 13
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: Record Number: 2018/106, 2018/107 & 2020/209

In the Matter of Decobake Limited (In Liquidation)

And in the Matter of the Companies Act 2014

Between

Paul Coyle

Appellant

and

Declan De Lacy

Respondent

[2022] IECA 13

Haughton J.

Power J.

Collins J.

Record Number: 2018/106, 2018/107 & 2020/209

High Court Record Number: 2017/225 COS

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Costs – Liquidation – Stay – Respondent seeking costs – Whether the respondent’s costs of the appeal should be made costs in the liquidation simpliciter

Facts: The Court of Appeal, by its principal judgment delivered on 13 October 2021 (Haughton J), dismissed the three appeals of the appellant, Mr Coyle, and affirmed orders whereby the High Court fixed the remuneration payable to the respondent, Mr De Lacy, as provisional liquidator of Decobake Ltd, refused the appellant’s application for discovery, and refused the appellant’s application to dismiss the fee approval application pending the resolution of related proceedings. Counsel for the respondent submitted that as the respondent was entirely successful he should be awarded the costs of the appeals in the first instance against Mr Coyle personally, with any shortfall following execution to be borne by the liquidation as costs in the liquidation. Mr Coyle opposed any award of costs against him personally and asked that the costs be costs in the liquidation. In his submissions Mr Coyle raised a number of allegations in relation to the “conduct of the liquidator”. Alternatively, if costs were to be awarded against him, he sought a stay pending the resolution of the plenary proceedings De Lacey v Paul Coyle and others Rec No. 2017/7252P which would address the ownership of intellectual property and certain products marketed and sold by the Company.

Held by the Court that none of Mr Coyle’s allegations in relation to the “conduct of the liquidator” constituted conduct on the part of the respondent that would justify the Court ordering otherwise than that costs be awarded to the “entirely successful” party. The Court therefore ordered that the respondent’s costs of all three appeals be awarded in the first instance against Mr Coyle personally, with any shortfall following execution to be borne by the liquidation as costs in the liquidation, such costs to be adjudicated by a legal costs adjudicator. The Court refused Mr Coyle’s application to have the respondent’s costs of the appeal made costs in the liquidation simpliciter.

The Court held that no basis on which any stay could properly be granted had been identified.

Costs to respondent.

Unapproved

No Redactions Needed

Costs Judgment of the Court delivered on the 26th day of January, 2022 .

Introduction

1 . By its principal judgment delivered on 13 October 2021 (Haughton J. with Power and Collins JJ. concurring) (“the Principal Judgment”) the court dismissed the appellant's three appeals and affirmed orders whereby the High Court fixed the remuneration payable to the respondent as provisional liquidator of Decobake Limited, refused the appellant's application for discovery, and refused the appellant's application to dismiss the fee approval application pending the resolution of related proceedings. This judgment relates to costs and is supplemental to and should be read in conjunction with the Principal Judgment.

2 . In the High Court the liquidator was allowed the costs of his fee approval application as costs in the liquidation, and there was no order in relation to the appellant's costs/expenses. In respect of the other two applications, the High Court ordered that the liquidator's costs be recovered as costs in the winding up, and, in the event that the respondent was unable to recover same in the winding up, ordered that the respondent recover the costs against Mr. Coyle. Neither party has asked this court to interfere with the costs orders made in the High Court.

Costs – the stance of the parties

3 . In the Principal Judgment in respect of the costs of the appeals it was stated:

“135. As the respondent has been entirely successful in these appeals, I would propose that he should be entitled to his costs of these appeals as costs in the winding up, and, in the event that the respondent is unable to recover such costs in the winding up, that he be entitled to recover such costs against the appellant. If either party wishes to seek different orders in respect of costs to that proposed they should so indicate in writing to the Office of the Court of Appeal within 14 days of electronic delivery of this judgment, and a short costs hearing will then be arranged.”

4 . Following communication from Mr. Coyle the court arranged a costs hearing which took place on 25 November 2021.

5 . At the outset counsel for the respondent submitted that as the respondent was entirely successful he should be awarded the costs of the appeals in the first instance against Mr. Coyle personally, with any shortfall following execution to be borne by the liquidation as costs in the liquidation – a stance that is repeated in the respondent's written submissions.

6 . Mr. Coyle, who appeared in person, opposed any award of costs against him personally and asked that the costs be costs in the liquidation. Alternatively, if costs were to be awarded against him, he sought a stay pending the resolution of the plenary proceedings De Lacey v Paul Coyle and others Rec No. 2017/7252P which will address the ownership of intellectual property and certain products marketed and sold by the Company. He handed in a short written submission which the court considered.

Right to be heard

7 . In the course of addressing the court Mr. Coyle became overwrought, making reference to a disability/medical condition (dyslexia) which he said puts him at a disadvantage in making oral submissions to the court. He left the courtroom abruptly in the course of making submissions and, as he left court, made a number of angry, intemperate and wholly inappropriate remarks. The hearing was briefly suspended to allow him to collect himself. On resumption Mr. Coyle apologised to the Court, an apology which the Court acknowledged. The Court had allocated a limited period of time for the hearing (a period which in the Court's view was ample, having regard to the fact that the only issue to be heard related to costs). 1 In ease of Mr Coyle, the Court decided to allow him an opportunity to make written submissions on the costs issue and gave directions for the exchange of such submissions by both parties. In the time remaining the Court then proceeded to hear further oral submissions from Mr. Coyle, and a brief response from counsel which was confined to stating that the liquidator denied all Mr. Coyle's allegations and suggestions of wrongdoing.

8 . Following that hearing Outline Submissions on behalf of the respondent were filed on 26 November 2021, and Mr. Coyle filed his Submission on 20 December 2021, and furnished the authorities which he relies upon, and the respondent's further Reply Submission was filed some days late on 11 January 2022 but was accepted by the court.

9 . The court has had regard to all of the written Submissions, including that filed by Mr. Coyle at the hearing on 25 November 2021, and has also had regard to the relevant oral submissions made on that day. The court has also had regard to the authorities furnished by Mr. Coyle, insofar as it considered them relevant to the costs issue.

10 . Certain broad complaints that have frequently been made by Mr. Coyle in this litigation, and which are repeated in one form or another in his submissions, are that he has fundamental rights, including a right to be heard, family rights and property (including intellectual property) rights, and a right to an effective remedy, and that because of his dyslexia the court has a duty to protect him. Mr. Coyle has never presented any medical evidence to the court to show that he suffers from dyslexia or the extent of the condition, or the manner in which it affects his ability to present his case in court, although he has explained that his attempts to obtain this have been frustrated due to the Covid pandemic. Aside from that, he has a history of attending and advocating before both the High Court and this Court in respect of these applications and appeals, and it is clear from his paperwork that he undertakes considerable preparation in advance of such hearings. In delivering oral submissions this Court observes that he has generally been fluent and he is characteristically robust in his delivery, and gets his points across.

11 . In hearing both the present appeal, and his costs submissions, this Court has taken cognisance of what he has said about his condition, and the materials on dyslexia that he has furnished, and, notwithstanding the absence of any relevant medical evidence, has sought to accommodate Mr Coyle to the maximum extent practicable.. Although the court was at that stage generally hearing all appeals remotely due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it acceded to Mr Coyle's request for a physical hearing of his appeals. At that substantive hearing the court permitted Mr. Coyle to be assisted by not one, but two, ‘McKenzie Friends’. He was afforded, in the court's view, ample time and opportunity to prepare for the appeal hearing, and to make his oral submissions, in addition to written submissions. These were duly considered and addressed in detail in the Principal Judgment. Mr. Coyle was also afforded ample time to prepare for the costs hearing. At that hearing he certainly became upset, but when he resumed the court heard his further submissions, and in the circumstances took the unusual step of affording him the opportunity to make further submissions in writing.

12 . This court fully respects Mr. Coyle's right to be heard, whether arising from the principles of natural and constitutional justice and/or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the manner...