Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal against a High Court order for summary judgment, requiring repayment of over €1.19 million in research and development grant monies to a State agency. The original High Court decision found the defendant bound by a deed of novation that transferred obligations—including a guarantee for grant repayment—following the winding up of a related entity. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling, highlighting that the deed was properly executed, consideration was present, and the absence of a company seal did not invalidate the agreement under applicable law. Arguments regarding execution, delay, hearsay evidence, and alleged deficiencies in High Court procedure were rejected. The costs order of the High Court was also affirmed, with only a modest reduction for confusion over the sealing issue.
summary judgment – novation agreement – grant repayment – guarantee enforcement – company law – execution of deeds – State agency – research and development grant – appeal dismissed – winding up – costs order – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – Rome I Regulation – indoor management rule (Turquand’s case) – hearsay evidence
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.