High Court judge says 'the only winners are the lawyers' in multi-million dollar litigation
The case was listed for an eight-day hearing last June with costs, the judge said, estimated by the parties as likely to exceed €1m.
A High Court judge who threw out a case involving multi-million dollar claims on either side and where “the only winners are the lawyers” has said it should act as a salutary lesson for all litigants.
Mr Justice Michael Twomey, who found in the commercial case that neither side were entitled to any award, said mediation offers a “great opportunity for a reality check”.
The case, the judge said, would have benefitted from “mediation/reality checking” and the only winners in the case are the lawyers.
“This case should therefore act as a salutary lesson for all plaintiffs when they receive the advice to consider mediation instead of litigation, that they do seek to undergo the reality check of mediation,” the judge said.
Mr Justice Twomey made his comments in a ruling on the action brought by V Media Doo, registered in Montenegro and First Click Marketing Operations Management Ltd incorporated in the Abu Dhabi Free Zone against Techads Media Ltd over alleged unpaid invoices for web traffic.
Techads Media Ltd was based at Dublin City University Alpha Campus and at one time, the court heard, was valued at over $600million but three years ago its business disappeared overnight and the judge said Techads “exists solely for the purposes of this litigation”.
V Media and First Click’s claim, the judge said, was in the region of $2.5m and Techads’ counterclaim was for about $1.8m.
The case was listed for an eight-day hearing last June with costs, the judge said, estimated by the parties as likely to exceed €1m.
Mediation, the judge said, offers a great opportunity for a reality check regarding firstly the likelihood of a litigant’s claim being successful, and secondly, even if it is, a reality check regarding the likelihood of a litigant obtaining anything close to the sums claimed.
He noted that The Mediation Act 2017 makes clear that litigation “should be the option of last resort rather than first resort when it comes to resolving disputes“.
Mr Justice Twomey said the case illustrates the broader point that human nature is such that persons who undertake litigation will often seek to be as successful as possible which often means portraying the damages that they have suffered or the amounts lost at their absolute height.
However, he said the downside of such an approach is that litigants can end up believing their own publicity as they repeat and provide evidence of their claims “and so reinforce their own belief in their claims”.
Unfortunately, the judge said, the problem with this approach is that it can reduce the likelihood of a settlement particularly if the first reality check of the claims and counterclaims occurs when it is too late.
Mr Justice Twomey ruled that V Media Doo and First Click were not entitled to payment from Techads of the invoices.
He said this was because under the terms of their contract, with Techads, Techads was entitled to withhold payment because of V Media’s and First Click’s failure to obtain prior approval of any third-party providers of web traffic.
The judge said the court could have no confidence that any of the figures presented to the court represent the amount of money actually lost by Techads as a result of V Media’s alleged failure to obtain approval in advance for its use of subcontractors.
The court, he said, accordingly could not make any order in relation to the counterclaim.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
