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.
Trial judge was correct that there was an agreement between parties about monies that were due and owing
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses the plaintiff's appeal and: (i) upholds decision of the High Court in which judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of €187,579.92 in circumstances where the plaintiff claimed that €1,130, 418 plus VAT and legal costs was the true sum due and owing to them, on the grounds that: (a) there was no merit in the contention that the trial judge erred in failing to find that a concluded arrangement existed between the parties prior to March 2010; (b) the suggestion that the trial judge’s finding of the unenforceability of the December 2011 Agreement had the effect of allowing some other liability other than the March 2010 Agreement to come into force was without merit; (c) there was no error committed by the trial judge in failing to find that the March 2010 Agreement had been repudiated by the defendant; and (d) any inferences drawn by the trial judge were open to him on the evidence; and (ii) upholds decision to order that the defendants pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs up to the date of the lodgement on the grounds that there was a proper basis for which the trial judge based his decision.
Faherty J (nem diss): Appeal by the plaintiff of a decision in which in which judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of €187,579.92 in circumstances where the plaintiff claims that €1,130, 418 plus VAT and legal costs was the true sum due and owing to them - the plaintiff is an architectural firm - the plaintiff's claim was to recover the sum of €1,130,418 (plus VAT) from the defendants which was said to be the balance of monies due and owing for architectural services provided to the defendants in respect of a number of projects - the works were carried out during the economic boom in Ireland - the trial judge found that an agreement had been reached for the settlement regarding the outstanding fees on the 8th March 2010 for €265,000 + VAT - when was agreement reached between the parties - what was the amount for which the defendants were liable - how was the March 2010 Agreement implemented - whether the December 2011 agreement had any effect - whether the defendants repudiated or refused to honour the March 2010 Agreement and/or the December 2011 Agreement - whether the trial judge erred in the manner in which costs were dealt with - the defendants made a lodgment into court prior to the hearing - Order 22, rule 6 of the Rules of the Superior Courts - whether the plaintiff entitled to interest on the sum awarded - appeal dismissed
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.
