Ward v Skeehan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: King's Bench Division (Ireland)
• Judge: K. B. Div.,Probate.
• Judgment Date: 18 June 1906
• Docket Number: (1906. No. 10.)
• Date: 18 June 1906

Ward

and

Skeehan (1).

K. B. Div.

Probate.

(1906. No. 10.)

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1907.

Practice — Costs, security for — Defendant caveator resident out of the jurisdiction — R. S. C., 1905, Ord, XXIX., Rr. 1–3.

A next-of-kin caveator resident abroad may, in a proper case, be ordered to give security for costs, but this cannot be required as a matter of right. Even in a Common Law action there is no inflexible rule that a plaintiff resident abroad must give security for costs.

Motion.

This was an action brought by Frank Ward, as executor of Owen Carlon, late of Dundalk, in the county of Louth, who died on August 24, 1905, to propound in solemn form a will dated December 21, 1903. The defendant, Mary Skeehan, was next-of-kin of Owen Carlon, and claimed to be a legatee under an earlier

will than that propounded by the plaintiff. She resided out of the jurisdiction, viz. at Melbourne, Australia. She lodged a caveat on January 6, 1906, which was duly warned by the plaintiff On February 5, 1906, and an appearance entered to the warning on February 12, 1906. The writ was issued on March 1, 1906, and on March 15, 1906, the notice requiring security for costs prescribed by the Rules of the High Court was served, but it was not complied with. The plaintiff, accordingly, instituted a motion applying for an order that the defendant should, within a time to be named by the Court, give such security as the Court might direct to cover the plaintiff's costs of this action; and that in default thereof the caveat entered by the defendant be set aside, and all contentious proceedings in this action be discontinued. Affidavits were made going into the merits of the case, but it is unnecessary to refer to them.

M'Cann, for the plaintiff:—

The Court has jurisdiction to require security from a caveator resident out of the jurisdiction for the costs of an action which she has rendered necessary by appearing to the warning, though according to the present practice she is a defendant: In the Goods of Twomey; O'Leary v. Stack (1); In the Goods of Roger Flanagan (2). In ordinary actions a plaintiff resident out of the jurisdiction must give security for costs: Crozat v. Brogden (3); Walker v. Atkinson (4); Dennis v. Leinster Paper Co. (5). The same rule applies here. The only thing required in such actions is an...