Printing company will have to put up security for costs

A printing company suing over the loss of a valuable contract to publish newspapers in the former TCH media group will have to put up security for costs — which could be as much as €3m — if its action is to go ahead, a judge has decided.

Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan ruled defendants including Thomas Crosbie Holdings, Landmark Media, and Thomas Crosbie and Alan Crosbie, are entitled to orders for security of costs in the action taken by Webprint Concepts Ltd.

Webprint has sued several parties in the Commercial Court over losing the contract as a result of what it alleges was the “wilful” and “pre-packaged” restructuring of Thomas Crosbie media group earlier this year.

All the defendants had applied for orders requiring Webprint to provide security for the costs of the case, to be heard in October.

Webprint opposed the applications on grounds including its financial difficulties arose from what it alleges was a contrived re-structuring. The financial loss exceeds the alleged legal costs of €3.1m, it claimed.

The case is against Thomas Crosbie Printers Ltd (TCP); TCH; Bontury Ltd (trading as Landmark Media Investments); AIB; TCH receiver Kieran Wallace; Irish Times Ltd; TCH director Thomas Patrick Crosbie; and TCH chairman Alan Crosbie.

Yesterday, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan dismissed the security for costs application of TCP, ruling that TCP had not made out a prima facie defence to the substantial claims of Webprint.

The judge ruled that TCH, Bontury, Thomas Crosbie, and Alan Crosbie had made a prima facie defence to the claims and were entitled to orders for security for costs. Webprint had not discharged the onus of establishing special circumstances for which orders for security in favour of the TCH defendants along with AIB, the receiver, and the Irish Times should not be made against it.

The judge will next Friday hear submissions from counsel as to the precise form of the order required.

Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan also noted that Webprint prior to the hearing accepted it will not be able to pay the defendants’ costs if successful and that on the affidavits delivered, AIB, Mr Wallace, and the Irish Times each have established a prima facie defence to its claims.

The judge said the real issue between the parties is whether Webprint can establish at trial that TCH, Landmark, and the two Crosbies had the requisite intention to procure a breach of contract by TCP in so far as each of them participated in or co-operated with the scheme and the transactions which took place on March 6/7 2013. The judge said she was satisfied there is evidence which, if accepted by a judge at trial, provides an arguable basis for a defence to this claim.

Whilst Webprint may be considered to have established a prima facie claim against some of the defendants for procuring breach of contract the judge said there is also evidence before the court which if accepted, forms an arguable basis for a defence by TCH, Landmark, and the Crosbies to this claim.

The judge said she was satisfied a prima facie defence to the claim had been established. She also ruled a defence had been made to the claims relating to alleged breach of duty, intential interference with business, and economic relations and alleged conspiracy.

Webprint, the judge said had not identified a point of law of such gravity and importance as to transcend the interests of the parties actually before the court which could be considered in the interests of the common good to require clarification. In any so called pre-pack receivership the obligations on the participants will depend upon the facts and nature of the transactions, the judge said.