A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 31 July 2018
Fastwell Limited -v- OCL Capital plc  IEHC 39
Costs were considered in a recent High Court decision by Mr. Justice O'Connor.
This case arose from a dispute over an Agreement for Lease over two kiosks at Grand Canal Square. Planning Permission was obtained by the Plaintiff but included a significantly enlarged demise, including a basement.
During the trial it emerged that the Plaintiff had failed to make proper discovery and that it was seeking to rely on pre-contractual dealings not pleaded in the Statement of Claim. The Court granted leave for an Amended Statement of Claim to allow the Plaintiff to mend his hand in this respect.
The Amended Statement of Claim included reliefs for an Order rectifying the Agreement for Lease to include the basement area. The trial resumed and was heard over four days in the High Court. The Court asked the Plaintiff on the final day of trial if it would accept the smaller demise which the Defendant asserted was covered by the lease. The Plaintiff agreed and Mr Justice O'Connor made an order in the following terms:
In relation to costs, the Plaintiff submitted it was entitled to same, following the usual rule that costs follow the event. The event in this case being the question of the validity of the lease. The Plaintiff also suggested that the Defendant could be awarded 1.5 days of costs in respect of the dismissed rectification claim.
The Defendant applied for its costs on the basis that the event in this case was the question of the enlarged demise. The Defendant advised the Court that simply being satisfied with the result did not equate to the event being determined in the Plaintiff's favour.
The Court found that the event in this case was not the event as pleaded by the Plaintiff which related to the enlarged demise. The Court found that the Plaintiff had failed in its claim and costs followed the event and so were awarded to the Defendant. The Court excluded the costs of two days of hearing as an acknowledgment that not all the issues were decided in favour of the Defendant.
This case is a useful reminder that with the general rule of costs following the event, the event should be that which is actually pleaded.
Rachel Rough, Kathryn Nisbet
Peter Allchorne, Michael McCabe
Peter Allchorne, Caroline Hall, Michael McCabe
Claire Laver, Rhys Pousette, Jemma Lewis, Caroline Bigos
Emma Fuller, Joanna Folan
Will Potts, Daniel Hobson