The High Court has refused to enter summary judgment in a €101,016 rent arrears claim brought by Pat Meagher and Laura Meagher against SAP Holdings Ltd, finding the company had raised an arguable defence. The court sent the case on for a plenary hearing, where the disputed facts can be determined.
Mr Justice Barr delivered the judgment on 20 July 2022. The claim concerns rent said to be due under a 20-year lease, at an initial annual rent of €28,060, for the period from 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2020. The Meaghers sought summary judgment on the basis that SAP Holdings had no bona fide defence. The company did not dispute that the claimed sums were due as rent under the lease, but argued the Meaghers were not entitled to receive it.
SAP Holdings relied on an alleged side agreement between the Meaghers and Jerry O’Reilly, who sold land to them in 2017. O’Reilly’s account was that they agreed to hold the SAP lands, the O’Connor farmhouse and the convent building in trust for him, transfer those parcels back within six to 12 months, and leave him entitled to the rent in the meantime. He said the purchase price was reduced from €1.3 million to €1.225 million as part of that arrangement.
The Meaghers disputed that account. They said they bought the entire holding for €1.225 million and that Pat Meagher refused O’Reilly’s request to transfer the SAP lands back after the sale. The judgment also records affidavit evidence from O’Reilly’s accountant, an architectural technician, a field manager employed by SAP Holdings and a retired company director. That evidence included accounts of work, insurance, access arrangements, proposed development drawings and communications concerning the disputed parcels after the sale. These were matters raised in the affidavits, not final findings on ownership.
In assessing whether the claim could be decided summarily, the judge said the question was whether it was very clear that the defendant had no case or whether its affidavits disclosed an arguable defence. He considered the evidence of activity on the disputed lands, continued insurance and maintenance, communications and the timing of the rent request. He said the unsigned, mostly undated handwritten notes referring to a trust agreement carried little weight.
The judge concluded that the evidence raised real disputes between the Meaghers and O’Reilly and that it was not appropriate to grant summary judgment. The ruling did not establish that the alleged trust agreement existed or determine the ultimate entitlement to the rent. The case was directed to proceed through pleadings and discovery towards a plenary hearing. By consent, it was linked to O’Reilly’s separate proceedings against the Meaghers, and the two cases are to travel together to a hearing. The costs of the summary judgment application were reserved to the trial.