Security For Costs ' The Proper Approach To Assessing A Plaintiff's Ability To Pay Costs

• Published date: 17 August 2022
• Law Firm: William Fry
• Author: Ms Lisa Carty and Hilary Rogers

Introduction

Atin Investments Limited v Remcoll Capital Limited and Garlin Investments ICAV [2022] IEHC 357 involved a dispute relating to the termination of a service level agreement between the plaintiff (Atin) and the first named defendant (Remcoll). Remcoll had entered the agreement in its capacity as an investment advisor to the second named defendant (Garlin). Remcoll unilaterally terminated the contract with Atin. Atin instituted proceedings claiming breach of contract against Remcoll and Garlin arising from the termination of the contract, and a claim against Garlin for the tort of inducement of breach of contract (Proceedings).

The Security for Costs Application

Garlin brought a security for costs application under section 52 of the Companies Act 2014 (Section 52 Application) on the basis that Atin's financial position was such that it would be unable to meet Garlin's costs, if it successfully defended the claim.

Applicable Legal Principles

The High Court (Court) noted that the principles applicable to Section 52 Applications are well established. The Court, citing Clarke CJ in Quinn Insurance Ltd (Under...