If a plaintiff issues proceedings for a liquidated debt and asserts there’s no defence available, what is the most appropriate procedural route to pursue and what test will the court apply?
Summary procedure. Test is from (Harrisrange v. Duncan): has the defendant
satisfied the court that he has a fair or reasonable probability of having a real
or bona fide defence
A defendant applies for summary judgment but the plaintiff produces some evidence suggesting a possible defence. What is the likely outcome?
Leave to defend will be granted as the threshold is a credible or arguable defence.
A defendant argues that a plaintiff company cannot pay costs if it loses and seeks security for costs. What must the defendant establish?
A prima facie defence and that the plaintiff company is unable to pay costs.
If a plaintiff company argues that its financial difficulty was caused by the defendant’s wrongdoing. What does it need to establish and what standard of proof applies?
This may constitute special circumstances preventing the order (Framus - show prima facie defence and BoP evidence of impecuniosity).
A plaintiff resident in another EU Member State brings proceedings in Ireland. Can the defendant obtain security for costs based solely on residence?
No; must show cogent evidence of difficulty enforcing judgment (Maher).
A defendant delays seeking security for costs until late in proceedings after the plaintiff has incurred substantial expense. What is the likely effect?
The court may refuse security due to delay constituting special circumstances.
A party seeks an interlocutory injunction to restrain ongoing harm. What full test will the court apply?
Campus Oil test: serious question, adequacy of damages, undertaking in damages, balance of convenience.
A plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated by damages, and neither can the defendant under the undertaking. What determines the outcome?
The balance of convenience, aiming to preserve the status quo.
A party seeks a mandatory injunction requiring a defendant to take action. What standard applies?
A strong case to be tried (higher than ordinary injunction threshold).
A plaintiff applies ex parte for a Mareva injunction. What must they establish?
Full and frank disclosure, a substantive claim, and a real risk of dissipation of assets to defeat judgment.
A defendant argues that assets are being used in the ordinary course of business. Is this sufficient for a Mareva injunction?
No; must show risk of dissipation to defeat judgment.
A plaintiff seeks an Anton Piller order. What must be shown?
Extremely strong case, very serious damage, and real risk of destruction of evidence.
A defendant contests a summary judgment application. What happens jurisdictionally?
The Master loses jurisdiction and the case goes to the High Court judge.
A plaintiff rejects a PIAB assessment and later recovers less at trial. What is the likely consequence?
Adverse costs consequences.
A defendant seeks both summary judgment and, alternatively, security for costs. How should the court approach this?
First consider summary judgment (if no defence); if defence exists, then consider security for costs.
A defendant argues both that there is no defence and that the plaintiff cannot pay costs. What strategic inconsistency arises?
Summary judgment asserts no defence; security for costs assumes proceedings will continue—arguments may undermine each other.
A plaintiff seeks an injunction but refuses to give a cross-undertaking in damages. What is the likely outcome?
Caldwell Case: (1) Court cannot compel an undertaking but it can refuse to grant an injunction w/o one. (2) The undertaking, enables the other party to apply for compensation if the interlocutory
injunction should not have been granted. (3) The undertaking is not given to the
enjoined but to the court. (4) Where it is determined that the injunction should
not have been granted the undertaking is likely to be enforced, though the court
retains a discretion not to do so.
A defendant shows a weak but arguable defence in a summary judgment application. What is the likely result?
Leave to defend will be granted.
A party seeks security for costs - in what sum will it be and what must the court consider?
In general,1/3 the costs which would probably be incurred by
Defendant (see Thalle v. Soares [1957] IR 182). Can be increased in the interests of justice.
A plaintiff argues that refusing an injunction would cause irreparable harm, while granting it would only cause financial loss to the defendant. What is the likely result?
Injunction likely granted as damages favour the defendant.
A company plaintiff with no assets brings a claim raising an issue of public importance. How does this affect security for costs?
May constitute special circumstances justifying refusal.
A party seeks a Mareva injunction but fails to disclose a key adverse fact. What is the likely consequence?
The injunction may be discharged for lack of full and frank disclosure.
A defendant argues that the plaintiff’s claim is bound to fail when opposing an amendment. Is this relevant in summary judgment?
Yes for summary judgment, but not for amendment (different tests).
A party applies for an interlocutory injunction that would effectively determine the entire dispute. How does this affect the test?
Balance of convenience may not apply as the hearing is effectively final.
-
Civil Court Orders and Time Limits112
-
Miscellaneous Samples209
-
Limitation Periods in Civil Law34
-
Costs and access to the courts14
-
Service, Appearance and Defence72
-
Personal Injuries66
-
Summary procedure52
-
Injunctions12
-
Privilege, Discovery, Interrogatories, Inspection53
-
Security for Costs28
-
Enforcement57
-
Trial and Appeal48
-
Family Law200
-
Conveyancing110
