The Court of Appeal has restored a damages claim brought by Greenwich Project Holdings Limited over a disputed property sale, ruling that dismissal for procedural non-compliance was disproportionate. The court left in place a separate order refusing to reopen the High Court’s dismissal decision.
Greenwich sued a statutory receiver in September 2014 after the receiver served notices purporting to rescind a contract for the purchase of a property at Greenwich Court, Rathmines. The claim sought damages and certain planning documents; it did not seek specific performance or challenge the validity of the rescission in its pleadings.
In July 2019, the High Court directed Greenwich to take all steps necessary within four calendar months to apply to have the case listed for hearing. Greenwich did not meet that deadline. The High Court later dismissed the damages case, finding a serious and persistent breach without a legitimate explanation. It also refused Greenwich’s application to revisit the dismissal, which relied on correspondence from 2014 that had been exhibited in an earlier motion concerning a lis pendens.
On appeal, the court accepted that Greenwich’s failure to comply with the direction warranted a sanction. It also found the broader delay in prosecuting the claim was inordinate and inexcusable. But it concluded the High Court had treated the possible impact of separate proceedings for specific performance as a decisive factor, even though those pleadings were not before it and the receiver’s motion did not concern that separate suit.
The Court of Appeal said the damages claim was arguable and appeared likely to be primarily a documents case. It found the receiver had not established that the balance of justice required the claim to be dismissed. The court said strict case management and time limits could address the delay, and that the High Court had not adequately considered alternatives to ending the claim.
The appeal was allowed only insofar as the order dismissing the damages proceedings was concerned. The refusal to reopen the High Court decision was upheld. The court directed the receiver to reply to Greenwich’s January 2020 request for particulars within 14 days of the judgment. Each side had 21 days for discovery requests, and Greenwich had 21 days from perfection of the order to deliver any reply to the defence. Time was to run during the long vacation, after which the matter was to be listed in the Chancery List for further case management.
The court made no order as to costs on the dismissal motion in the High Court or appeal. The receiver was awarded costs relating to Greenwich’s unsuccessful application to reopen the proceedings, stayed until the case concludes.