The High Court has refused Motorola Limited’s application to strike out a claim by three Imagine companies seeking more than €138 million, leaving the complex dispute to proceed to trial.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern delivered the judgment on 2 October 2012. Motorola had asked the court to strike out the plaintiffs’ fourth statement of claim, arguing that it did not provide proper particulars of the first and second plaintiffs’ alleged losses as required by an order made by Mr Justice Clarke on 9 November 2011. Motorola also sought dismissal of the proceedings as an abuse of process or because the claims were bound to fail.
The fourth statement of claim followed the striking out of an earlier, third version for failing to comply with directions made by Mr Justice Kelly. The judge said the question at this stage was whether the fourth version met Mr Justice Clarke’s order and, if so, whether the case should nevertheless be dismissed.
He found that the plaintiffs had supplied further details about how the first and second companies’ alleged damages related to those claimed by the third company. They had also added particulars about alleged representations made between October 2009 and July 2010, the claimed collateral contract and its alleged breach. The judge held that these changes met the requirements of the earlier order, while making clear that he was not deciding whether the pleaded claims would succeed.
The judge rejected Motorola’s contention that the proceedings were an abuse of process, finding that the plaintiffs had cooperated with the order and sufficiently elaborated on their case. He noted an apparent inconsistency between the statement of claim and an affidavit from the plaintiffs’ solicitor about where WiMax revenues and costs had been recorded. He said that issue, and any effect it might have on credibility or the weight of evidence, would have to be addressed at trial.
Motorola argued that an alleged oral agreement underpinning the first and second plaintiffs’ claims was subject to the Statute of Frauds and that the claims could not succeed. The plaintiffs disputed that interpretation. The judge held that the issue should be left to trial, applying the principle that, on an application to dismiss a claim as bound to fail, pleaded facts are treated as true and capable of proof.
Other questions, including the effect of a Novation Agreement on the second plaintiff’s ability to sue and the plaintiffs’ “single economic entity” argument, were also left for trial. The judge said the latter argument was arguable and that the case raised complex legal and factual issues. He therefore refused Motorola’s application. The judgment did not decide the underlying claims or their merits.