Gavin Pepper will not have to pay legal fees incurred by Pepper Finance in a High Court action taken by the debt-purchasing firm against the Dublin City councillor, a judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan on Wednesday said Mr Pepper had, at the earliest opportunity, given undertakings in terms sought by Pepper Finance Corporation (Ireland) – namely, not to attend or film outside the homes of staff of the firm.
The judge – who criticised Pepper Finance’s application for costs as “oppressive” – said it was appropriate to make no order for legal costs in the case.
Pepper Finance and its managing director Ian Wigglesworth brought urgent proceedings against Mr Pepper in July after the councillor recorded video footage outside Mr Wigglesworth’s home for the purposes of social media posts.
READ MORE
Mr Justice Cregan granted an interim injunction preventing the councillor from attending the Wigglesworth home, or filming and watching him and his family, or from publishing home addresses of Pepper Finance employees.
The proceedings became moot when Mr Pepper made the concessions in the terms of reliefs sought by Pepper Finance.
The case returned to court on Wednesday to decide the issue of legal costs.
Brian Conroy SC, appearing for Pepper Finance, said an order for costs should be made against Mr Pepper.
Arguing against Mr Pepper’s claim that the proceedings were brought prematurely – and as such, he should not have to pay costs – Mr Conroy submitted that the councillor “derided” on social media two pre-litigation letters seeking that he desist from the complained-of conduct.
Mr Justice Cregan said he understood why Mr Wigglesworth moved quickly in order to protect his family and noted that he was granted the injunction following an urgent application to the court. This, Mr Justice Cregan said, does not necessarily mean Pepper Finance and Mr Wigglesworth are entitled to legal costs.
The judge said Mr Pepper came into court and effectively held his hands up. He noted Mr Pepper gave the undertakings sought by Pepper Finance, something the court must have regard for.
He noted that Mr Pepper later offered to pay €2,500 in costs, which Pepper Finance agreed to and, in turn, intended to donate the money to charity. The agreement later broke down, the court heard.
In circumstances where there was a prospect of an agreement between the parties on costs, Mr Cregan asked Mr Conroy: “Why are you here?”
Mr Justice Cregan stated that Pepper Finance’s application for costs struck him as “oppressive”, an attempt to “grind Mr Pepper into the dust” by seeking a full costs order.
The judge said the application would serve to inflame matters between the parties.
Mr Pepper, representing himself in court, asked the judge to make no order for costs in the case, stating there was nothing he could have done to avoid the proceedings being served on him.
He complained of what he said were false allegations made against him by Pepper Finance in the proceedings, including seeking to characterise him as “far-right” and as being involved in serious incidents of violence.
Mr Justice Cregan said he would make no order as to costs in the case. The judge said Mr Pepper had “put his hands up at an early stage”.
