The High Court has refused Robert Lee and Eileen Lee’s application for summary judgment over €127,400 paid in connection with the proposed purchase of an apartment in Italy, directing that the case proceed to a plenary hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 16 February 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley said the defendants had shown a fair or reasonable probability of a real, bona fide and credible defence. The disputed issues could not be readily determined on the summary application, and the court could not clearly conclude that the defendants had no case. The judge stressed that he was not deciding whether either side was right in the substantive dispute.
The Lees said they paid the money towards buying the property and sought its return because, they argued, a formal contract and transfer of legal title never followed. Their application concerned €127,400, reduced from an original claim of €183,788 after €56,388 was removed from the summary judgment application and left for a possible Circuit Court hearing.
The defendants accepted that the cumulative payments for the application amounted to €127,400, but disputed that the sum could be claimed jointly and severally against all four defendants. They argued that the balance of the purchase price remained unpaid, that the claim was time-barred, and that the evidence did not sufficiently identify which defendant received each payment. They also said the plaintiffs had occupied and had access to the completed property from around 2008.
The judgment records disputes over the purchase price. The plaintiffs said it had been reduced from €245,845 to €183,788; the defendants disputed that reduction. The court also noted disagreement about the purpose and recipients of payments, the parties’ ability or willingness to complete the sale, and responsibility for alleged flood damage.
The defendants had brought separate proceedings seeking specific performance, among other relief. Justice Bradley found that this claim arose from the same circumstances and could arguably give rise to an equitable set-off. That provided a defence to the summary application; the judge did not decide the separate specific-performance claim.
The application for summary judgment was refused. The case was adjourned for plenary hearing, with the defendants given liberty to defend. The court listed the matter for mention on 27 February 2024 to hear the parties on consequential matters, including costs.