Rippington v Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Garrett Simons |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 664 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 2018 No. 4803 P. |
| Date | 11 October 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 664
THE HIGH COURT
Garrett Simons
2018 No. 4803 P.
AND
Costs – Special circumstances – Abuse of process – Defendants seeking orders directing that the plaintiff pay the costs of, and incidental to, the proceedings – Whether there were special circumstances which would justify departing from the general rule that “costs follow the event”
Facts: A number of the defendants had previously brought an application to have the proceedings as against them struck out on the basis that same represented an abuse of process and/or were frivolous and vexatious. That application was determined in favour of those defendants for the reasons set out in a written judgment dated 24 May 2019, Rippington v Ireland [2019] IEHC 353 (the principal judgment). The successful defendants had since applied for orders directing that the plaintiff, Ms Rippington, do pay the costs of, and incidental to, the proceedings. Those defendants had also applied to have the court measure the costs itself, i.e. to order that a sum in gross be paid in lieu of taxed costs pursuant to Order 99, rule 5 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The plaintiff opposed the application. She filed (amended) written legal submissions in the Central Office of the High Court on 29 July 2019. She also made oral submissions to the court at the hearing on Tuesday, 30 July 2019. She indicated an intention to appeal any costs order which might be made against her to the Court of Appeal. To that end, she requested that judgment on the costs application not be delivered during the course of the legal vacation, and that it instead be deferred to a date early in the new legal term. She explained that she has previously had difficulty in lodging appeal papers during the course of the legal vacation. Simons J acceded to that request, and indicated to Ms Rippington at the end of the hearing on 30 July 2019 that judgment would be delivered on 11 October 2019.
Held by Simons J that there were no special circumstances which would justify departing from the general rule that “costs follow the event”; the “event” in this case consisted of the making of orders in favour of the relevant defendants dismissing the proceedings and the making of an Isaac Wunder order against Ms Rippington. Simons J held that the making of a consequential costs order against Ms Rippington was necessary in order to protect the integrity of the court process and to ensure a just result for the defendants. Simons J held that no one is entitled to engage in abuse of process, on the scale on which Ms Rippington had engaged, with impunity; having put the defendants to further needless expense by the issuing of these proceedings, Ms Rippington must suffer the consequence of a costs order requiring her to pay their costs. Simons J held that this was an appropriate case in which the court should measure the costs itself, i.e. as opposed to leaving the costs to be taxed (measured) by the Taxing Master of the High
Court in the ordinary way.
Simons J held that the court had measured the costs in gross in the sum of €6,750 for each of the relevant defendants, and allowed a further sum of €500 (exclusive of VAT) in respect of outlay by each of the firms of solicitors, e.g. costs incurred in respect of post, photocopying, swearing affidavits, court fees etc. Simons J held that the order for costs would be subject to the usual stay in the event that an appeal to the Court of Appeal was made within time.
Cost awarded for the defendants.
This judgment addresses the question of where the liability to pay the costs of the within proceedings should fall. A number of the defendants had previously brought an application to have the proceedings as against them struck out on the basis that same represented an abuse of process and/or were frivolous and vexatious. This application was determined in favour of those defendants for the reasons set out in a written judgment dated 24 May 2019, Rippington v. Ireland [2019] IEHC 353 ( “the principal judgment”).
The successful defendants have since applied for orders directing that the plaintiff do pay the costs of, and incidental to, the proceedings. Those defendants have also applied to have the court measure the costs itself, i.e. to order that a sum in gross be paid in lieu of taxed costs pursuant to Order 99, rule 5 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The plaintiff, Ms Rippington, who appears as a litigant in person, opposes the application. Ms Rippington filed (amended) written legal submissions in the Central Office of the High Court on 29 July 2019. Ms Rippington also made oral submissions to the court at the hearing on Tuesday, 30 July 2019.
Ms Rippington indicated an intention to appeal any costs order which might be made against her to the Court of Appeal. To this end, Ms Rippington requested that judgment on the costs application not be delivered during the course of the legal vacation, and that it instead be deferred to a date early in the new legal term. Ms Rippington explained that she has previously had difficulty in lodging appeal papers during the course of the legal vacation. I acceded to this request, and indicated to Ms Rippington at the end of the hearing on 30 July 2019 that judgment would be delivered on today's date (11 October 2019).
The determination of the application before the court requires consideration, in sequence, of the following three issues. First, it is necessary to determine where the liability for costs should fall. Secondly, in the event that it is determined that Ms Rippington is liable, it will then be necessary to consider the defendants’ request that the court should measure the costs itself, i.e. as opposed to leaving the costs to be taxed (measured) by the Taxing Master of the High Court in the ordinary way. Thirdly, in the event that it is determined that the court should measure the costs, it will be necessary to carry out that exercise.
The ordinary rule is that costs follow the event, i.e. an order for costs is usually made in favour of the successful party as against the unsuccessful party. This is expressly provided for under Order 99, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (as amended) as follows.
“(1) The costs of and incidental to every proceeding in the Superior Courts shall be in the discretion of those Courts respectively.
[…]
(4) Subject to sub-rule (4A), the costs of every issue of fact or law raised upon a claim or counterclaim shall, unless otherwise ordered, follow the event.”
*Emphasis (italics) not in the original.
As appears, a court retains discretion to make a different order in respect of costs. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dunne v. Minister for Environment (No. 2) [2008] 2 I.R. 775, [27] confirms that where a court departs from the normal rule as to costs, it is not completely at large but must do so on a reasoned basis, indicating the factors which, in the circumstances of the case, warrant such a departure.
The Supreme Court has more recently confirmed in its judgment in Godsil v. Ireland [2015] IESC 103; [2015] 4 I.R. 535 that the general rule that costs follow the event represents the start point for any application.
“[52] The overriding start point on any question of contested costs is that the general principle applies; namely, that costs follow the event. All of the other rules, practices and approaches are supplementary to this principle and are designed to further its application or to meet situations where such application is difficult, complex or, indeed, even impossible.
[53] For the rule to apply quite evidently there must be an ‘event(s)’, which is capable of identification. In most cases that will not cause a difficulty, but in some it might. There may be situations which, it can be said, involve numerous issues, sometimes discrete and sometimes inter-related. Veolia Water UK plc v. Fingal County Council (No. 2) [2006] IEHC 240, [2007] 2 I.R. 81 gives assistance in this regard. When a multiple issue case requires assessment in light of the decision, the courts in more recent times have become more discerning and nuanced in their approach, sometimes awarding less than full costs and sometimes determining costs relative to issues which have been won or lost as the case may be. Such an approach, as well as perhaps being fairer, can also be considered as part of the court's function to regulate, in an expeditious and cost effective manner, complex litigation which ever increasingly now appears before it. Care, however, must be taken: not all cases will be suitable for such analysis and even when applied, the overall picture must not be lost sight of.”
On the facts of the present case, the “event” has been decided unequivocally in favour of the defendants. The application to strike out the proceedings was successful. Moreover, the related application, which some of the defendants had brought, for orders restraining Ms Rippington from instituting further proceedings against them without the leave of the President of the High Court (or a judge nominated by him) was also successful.
Ms Rippington has not sought to suggest that the “event” has been decided in her favour. Nor does she suggest that this is a case where the opposing side succeeded in only some of their arguments, with the consequence that an apportionment of costs should be made by reference to the principles in Veolia Water UK plc v. Fingal County Council [2007] 2 I.R. 81. Rather, the content of Ms Rippington's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Loomes Practising Under The Style and Title of Thomas Loomes and Company v Rippington and Others
...within the framework of O. 99, r. 7(2) of the Rules of the Superior Courts. Citing the judgment of Simons J. in Rippington v. Ireland [2019] IEHC 664, it is submitted that this was a straightforward case, that the parties had the opportunity to address the court on quantum, and that the jud......