The High Court has set aside a Circuit Court order requiring Sharon and Kevin Gilligan to return a replacement car to Connolly Bros. Car Sales (Ballybrit) Unlimited Company, trading as Connolly’s Hyundai. The defendants have unconditional leave to defend the dealership’s claim and to file a counterclaim concerning the car they bought from it.
In a judgment delivered on 22 November 2024, Mr Justice Garrett Simons found the dispute unsuitable for summary judgment. He did not decide who is entitled to the replacement car. The ruling allows the case to proceed to a hearing where the disputed evidence and legal issues can be examined.
The dispute began after Sharon Gilligan bought a Hyundai Tucson Executive Plus for €37,800 in January 2021. She alleges the car had defects that made it unusable, and that a clutch repair made before sale was not disclosed. She says she returned the car for repairs several times. When she brought it back on 22 April 2022, the dealership provided a replacement vehicle.
The dealership says the replacement was a courtesy car or was provided under a licence, and should have been returned when the purchased car was ready or on demand. The Gilligans say they understood they could keep it until the dispute over their purchased car was resolved. The judge said the evidence did not establish the precise terms of the arrangement. He noted that the dealership had not provided direct evidence of the agreement or documents setting out its terms, and that a December 2022 demand letter appeared inconsistent with the claim that the replacement should have been returned in April.
The judgment also considered evidence that a dealership employee had driven the purchased car extensively while it was said to be ready for collection. Photographs indicated that 13,500 kilometres had been added to its odometer. The judge said this conduct could support the Gilligans’ account, affect whether the dealership could honour the alleged agreement, and be relevant to a trial judge’s discretion over an order for delivery.
The High Court held that the dealership’s civil bill pleaded a claim in detinue, making it eligible for the summary judgment procedure. But the Gilligans had a credible defence, including over the agreement’s terms and whether the replacement vehicle should be returned. The court also identified difficult legal questions about whether an ordinary commercial vehicle must have special value or interest to its owner for a court to order its return.
The Circuit Court’s January 2024 judgment and order, including its costs order, were set aside. The judge’s provisional view was that the Gilligans should recover the costs to date, with the allocation to be addressed at a directions hearing listed for 10 December 2024. The judgment said the eventual full hearing would appear likely to take place in the High Court, but allowed either party to argue otherwise at that hearing.