let's talk about legal costs in this video the general position is that the dogs in the street
know that legal costs can be very high can be very prohibitive and most people most rational
people will try and stay out of the courts if they can help us because they know that there's always
a risk when it comes to costs in other words the general rule is and that's what i want to discuss
in this video the general rule is that costs follow the event that basically means that
the winner takes all in other words if you win your case you are in the normal course of events
entitled for the other party the losing party to pay you your costs to discharge your costs
that's as it should be so costs following the event is the usual rule in legal proceedings
and that is pursuant to legal principles that have always been established down through the years and
also now pursuant to the legal services regulation act 2015 so it's actually on the statute books in
ireland section 169 subsection 1 of the legal services regulation act 2015 provides costs to
follow event it sets out their situation that the general principle is that a party who is entirely
successful in civil proceedings is entitled to an award of course against a party who is
not successful in those proceedings unless the court orders other ways having regard to the
particular nature and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the proceedings by the parties
including conduct before and during the proceedings etc in other words from a to
g there is a number of things that the court can look at in setting aside the general normal rule
that costs follow the event and if one party for example uh ex exaggerated his or her claim or if
the manner in which the parties conducted all or any part of their cases were such
or if the conduct before and during the proceedings was such that the court might see
a way in the interests of justice and so on might see the way to exercise their discretion and to
make a departure from the normal rule that costs follow the event but that is the default position
that is the default position pursuant to the statute that's on the statute books in ireland and
pursuant to well-established legal principles down through the years there was a recent case there in
february 2021 decision only last month in the high court involving a lady
maloney she was the plaintiff and she was suing casual taverns limiters that was in
voluntary liquidation so that wasn't going to be um of any benefit in terms of a course order
and the second defendant though was liberty insurance dac now the substantive case between
the parties was decided in december 2020 and in that case the liberty insurance dac the
insurance company successfully defended the case and the plaintiff miss maloney was unsuccessful
and in that situation then the normal position would be the cost follow the event miss maloney
must pay the costs for the insurance company but in this that was a december 2020 decision
in february 2021 then this decision deals with the question of costs and she applied to the court
for her costs or at least not have costs awarded against her she applied to the court for the court
to exercise its discretion and to set aside the normal rule that costs follow the event and she
made her application based on a number of things for example she argued that the conduct of the
plaintiff should be given due recognition by the court in not making any order as the costs against
the plaintiff the parties had agreed admitting many documents to the case without the need for
formal proof so she was arguing that her conduct in that regard should have been given recognition
the court held however that the agreement as to the documents benefit both parties because it
saved costs for both parties in terms of admitting documents uh formally to evidence and so on
so the court held that that agreement it would be a manifest injustice if the second aim defendant
that's the insurance company was the private of course as a result of this pre-trial agreement
between the parties she also contended that the proceedings dealt with a novel and substantive
point of law and that she had confined her case to a single substantive issue thereby
saving time and costs the court didn't agree with her the court held that this was not enough and
the court did not agree that there was any novelty to the issue the substantive issue and she didn't
win on that head either the plaintive also argued that the judgment would be of particular value to
the insurance company the high court again did not agree because it held that the decision that it
made was based on the particular circumstances of the case that was put before the court
the plaintiff also sought to rely on a calder bank type letter sent by the insurance company's legal
representative which offered that the insurance company would bear its own costs if the case was
withdrawn by 2pm on 2 p.m on the same day just to be clear here the insurance company offered
to bear its own costs if the plaintiff withdrew her case on the day that the letter was sent she
felt that she didn't have sufficient time to consider the offer and so on
and therefore she didn't withdraw it but the court said she couldn't get any benefit
or couldn't have the thing set aside now the normal rule set aside now she had decided to
bring her case she had chose not to withdraw that was her decision and she must live with us
the high court basically held then that there was not a sufficient reason to depart from the general
rule the costs followed the event and the war that caught the costs in favor of the insurance company
the defendant that the insurance company had been entirely successful in defending the case and
having regard to all matters set out in section 169 subsection one of the legal service regulation
act 2015 by which to make the decision the court held there was no reason to depart from the usual
rule including legislative provisions and legal principles it will be interesting to see if the
court of appeal decision by jim o'doherty and john waters for example i'm not sure what the position
there is in relation to costs i think the court allowed the parties to uh bring an application
in relation to costs within two weeks or something of the decision i'm not sure whether that happened
or not but you would imagine that waters and authority had costs awarded against them in
the high court judicial review application then you would imagine they'd probably have it awarded
against them in the court of appeal as well if you're to take the general legal principle
that costs follow the event and if you were to accept and you obviously have to do if you're
a democrat section 169 subsection one of the legal services regulation act 2015
which sets out quite clearly and quite expressly the costs follow the event in other words the
winner takes all and the loser pays the costs for the winning side i hope you find this video useful
if you do i would appreciate if you gave it the thumbs up down below and you may be interested
in subscribing to my youtube channel on which i publish videos every week about irish law
property business books general commentary and so on thanks for watching