Court rules on costs in complex landlord-tenant dispute

19 Mar 2025Court Report

The High Court ruled on the allocation of costs in a protracted landlord-tenant dispute with both parties achieving partial success

Introduction

The High Court recently delivered a ruling concerning the allocation of costs in a complex landlord-tenant dispute. The decision, handed down by Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan, addressed the multifaceted nature of the case, where both parties experienced partial success on various issues.

Background

The proceedings, which spanned seven days, were deemed unnecessarily prolonged, resulting in increased costs. Justice Phelan noted that both parties contributed to the extended duration of the case. The judgment delivered on 21 February 2025, provided the background and findings of the case ([2025] IEHC 106).

Applicable Legal Principles

Justice Phelan applied principles from Order 99 of the Rules and sections 168 and 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act, 2015. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Chubb European Group SE v. Health Insurance Authority [2020] IECA 183 was particularly influential. The court considered factors such as conduct, reasonableness in pursuing issues, and the parties' approach to settlement.

Discussion

The court found that neither party was 'entirely successful' in the proceedings. The plaintiff obtained damages, but not on the primary basis of their claim. Justice Phelan exercised discretion to award costs to the 'partially successful' party for specific successful elements, directing a set-off of costs.

Conduct of Parties

The court criticised both parties for adopting unreasonable positions. The landlord was found to have acted improperly in frustrating the exercise of a break clause, while the tenant pursued contrived arguments regarding rent payments. These actions contributed to the length and complexity of the proceedings.

Specific Issues

Multiple issues were raised, including variations in rent payment terms, the date rent became payable, and the calculation of service charges. The court found that both parties had successes and failures on these issues, often resulting in drawn outcomes in terms of cost liability.

Conclusion

Justice Phelan concluded that both parties were equally successful and unsuccessful. The decree ordered was not for the sums claimed, and the primary claim was not upheld. The court directed that each party bear 50% of the other's costs, with unresolved costs to be adjudicated by the Legal Costs Adjudicator.