BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Irish Court of Appeal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Court of Appeal >> Darcy v Allied Irish Bank Plc (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 284 (13 December 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECA/2022/2022IECA284.html Cite as: [2022] IECA 284 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Record Number: 2022/24
High Court Record Number: 2015/2214P
Noonan J. Neutral Citation Number [2022] IECA 284
Ní Raifeartaigh J.
Butler J.
BETWEEN/
TOM DARCY
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
-AND-
ALLIED IRISH BANKS PLC
FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT
-AND-
WILLIAM MURRAY
SECOND NAMED DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
COSTS RULING of the Court delivered on the 13th day of December, 2022
1. In its written judgment of the 21st October, 2022, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against an order of the High Court dismissing the proceedings as against the respondent on grounds of delay. Subsequent to the delivery of the written judgment, the court indicated to the parties its provisional view that since the respondent had been entirely successful, he should be entitled to the costs of the appeal. The appellant was given liberty to make a written submission if he wished to contend for a different order.
2. A submission in writing has been received from the appellant and apart from criticising the Court’s judgment, the only actual submission advanced in relation to costs is that the Court should take account of the appellant’s poor financial situation and should stay any order for costs until the final determination of the proceedings. The latter submission is not understood in circumstances where the proceedings are now at an end as against the respondent and appears to refer to the matter continuing as against the first defendant which is of course not material in the circumstances here.
3. The Court is satisfied that the appellant has not established any basis upon which the Court could depart from the normal rule contained in s. 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015 that the party who has been entirely successful, the respondent, should be entitled to his costs and the court so orders.
Result: Respondents entitled to costs of appeal