The High Court has given Giles McDonagh and Range King Limited four weeks to deliver and file a defence to a claim brought by Tacit Golf Club LLP. If they do not meet that deadline, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff, with damages and other relief to be determined later.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 9 May 2022, Ms Justice Emily Egan considered whether the plaintiff could rely on a 21-day warning letter sent before new default-of-pleading rules took effect, when those rules required a 28-day warning period.
The plaintiff’s plenary summons seeks damages for alleged wrongful interference with contractual rights and business relations, and conspiracy to injure. It also seeks disgorgement of profits, an account of profits, and orders concerning confidential information under trade secrets legislation. These are claims, not findings made in this ruling.
The defendants entered an appearance in May 2021 and the plaintiff delivered its statement of claim in August. The parties exchanged requests for and replies to particulars. The defendants submitted that the replies were inadequate, but had not issued a motion seeking further and better particulars. They had not delivered a defence.
The plaintiff sent a 21-day warning letter on 1 October 2021, before the new rules commenced on 13 November. It issued its motion for judgment in default of defence on 1 February 2022. The defendants argued that a 28-day warning letter was required and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant judgment.
The judge rejected that jurisdiction argument. Under the transitional provisions, the earlier warning letter was treated as a step under the new rules, and the plaintiff could proceed once the longer 28-day period had actually expired. More than 28 days passed before the motion was issued, so it was properly issued.
However, the court had no evidence that the plaintiff served the motion with the letter required by the new rules, explaining that a defence delivered within 21 days could result in the motion being struck out and the defendants paying €750 in costs. The judge said that omission did not remove the court’s jurisdiction, but made an unless order necessary in the interests of justice instead of entering judgment immediately.
The court extended the time to defend by four weeks and directed that, if the defence is not delivered and filed in the Central Office within that period, judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff. The matter is then to return to court for assessment of any damages and determination of any non-damages relief. The plaintiff was awarded the motion costs, measured at €750.