Background
Sean Dunne was adjudicated bankrupt in Ireland in July 2013, following a creditor petition. His bankruptcy was extended in 2018 because of material non-cooperation, with discharge due in April 2028.
In July 2024, Mr Dunne challenged the validity of the appointments of two official assignees in his bankruptcy and joined their solicitors, Clark Hill Solicitors LLP, to the proceedings. Kennedy J rejected a recusal application and upheld a preliminary procedural objection. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Dunne’s appeal in November 2025 and invited short written submissions on costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that the respondents, having been entirely successful in resisting the appeal, were entitled to their costs under the ordinary party-and-party basis.
It declined to award costs on a legal practitioner-and-client basis. Although the respondents described Mr Dunne’s unaccepted costs submissions as scurrilous, defamatory and abusive of court privilege, the Court had not considered those submissions because they exceeded the court-ordered 1,500-word limit. It therefore could not accede to the enhanced-costs application.
Key Takeaways
- A wholly successful respondent will ordinarily receive appeal costs on a party-and-party basis.
- Enhanced costs require a proper evidential and procedural basis.
- Submissions that breach a court-imposed word limit may not be accepted or considered.
Why It Matters
The ruling distinguishes entitlement to ordinary costs from the exceptional remedy of legal practitioner-and-client costs. Even where serious allegations are made about an opposing party’s litigation conduct, the court will not rely on material it has not accepted and considered.