Independent News and Media (Costs Ruling) (Approved)

1.������ This judgment determines the incidence of costs for an (unsuccessful) application for the removal of two court-appointed inspectors.� The inspectors had been appointed by the High Court (Kelly P.) to investigate and report upon the affairs of Independent News and Media plc (� the Company �).� The inspectors had been appointed pursuant to section 748 of the Companies Act 2014.

2.������ Mr. Leslie Buckley subsequently brought an application to have the appointment of the inspectors revoked (� the revocation application �).� The revocation application was refused for the reasons set out in a reserved judgment delivered on 15 February 2021, Independent News and Media (Recusal application ) [2021] IEHC 101 (�the principal judgment� ).

4.������ One of the notice parties to the revocation application, Mr. Robert Pitt, filed submissions on 1 March 2021 asserting an entitlement to recover his costs as against Mr. Buckley.� It is contended that Mr. Pitt was a necessary party to the proceedings, and that he did not�and indeed could not�take a neutral role on the issues raised by Mr. Buckley.� It is further contended that his participation in the proceedings was both necessary and reasonable to protect his interests, and that he is accordingly entitled to his costs.

5.������ Mr. Pitt also makes complaint about the initial directions hearing in these proceedings on 27 April 2020.� It is said that Mr. Buckley brought the application before the High Court without putting Mr. Pitt on notice of the fact that the former would�or so it is said�be disclosing confidential information from the inspection process publicly, and would be impugning Mr. Pitt�s character publicly without an opportunity to reply.

6.������ The position adopted by Mr. Buckley in replying submissions delivered on 11 March 2021 is to say that much of Mr. Pitt�s participation in the proceedings had been directed to misplaced complaints, divorced from the substance of the revocation application, on issues around notice and confidentiality.� In respect of the substance of the case, it is said that Mr. Pitt added nothing to the case made by the inspectors.