The Court of Appeal has dismissed Firstcare Ireland Limited’s appeal against a High Court judgment awarding Vector Workplace and Facility Management Limited an amended sum of €1,192,089.05, together with costs.
The appeal concerned whether Firstcare should have been allowed to defend Vector’s claim for unpaid invoices under a services agreement. The agreement, made in June 2014, covered catering, cleaning, laundry and facilities management at nursing homes and long-term care facilities operated by Firstcare. The Court of Appeal judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Donnelly on 28 June 2022.
Firstcare argued that its affidavit evidence disclosed an arguable defence. It cited complaints about services, a higher-than-expected final bill, increased cleaning supplies, an alleged failure to credit a government Covid-19 scheme, and a claim that a catering subcontractor had been asked to inflate prices by 10%. It also said it had a counterclaim of about €3.5 million for alleged overpayments during the contract.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that Firstcare had not substantiated its objections to the invoices. It had not identified particular disputed invoices, despite the agreement requiring prompt notice of a good-faith invoice dispute. The court also noted that the parties had agreed a payment plan, including payments of €500,000, and that the amount claimed was close to the sum contemplated under that plan.
The court found that the allegations about the subcontractor and the Covid scheme were speculative and relied on hearsay. The affidavit from the subcontractor concerned a different matter and did not support the alleged 10% kickback. Evidence about increased supplies indicated that Firstcare staff had ordered or approved them. The court also noted that a further affidavit and evidence of the proposed invoice review and investigations had not been put before it.
As Firstcare had issued a separate plenary summons after the High Court judgment that mirrored its proposed counterclaim, the Court of Appeal said it was unnecessary to consider that issue further. It concluded that the High Court had correctly applied the summary judgment principles and dismissed the appeal, leaving the amended judgment in place.