The High Court has refused to resolve Creedon Construction Limited’s €31,136.60 claim against homeowners Alan Kenny and Emma Claire Mullally by summary judgment, finding that their allegations about defective work raised a prima facie defence. The dispute is to proceed to a plenary hearing if the parties wish to continue litigating.
Mr Justice Barrett’s judgment, delivered on 1 April 2014, says the sum claimed was the unpaid value of construction work and services under a building contract dated 12 October 2012. The company had originally claimed €52,956.60. After the summary summons was issued, the defendants paid €21,820, reducing the amount in dispute.
The contract concerned a new dwelling-house and garage. It gave 29 March 2012 as the practical completion date, but the judgment says this appeared to be an error and that the intended date was 29 March 2013. The work was not complete by then. The defendants, through their architect, told the builder on 28 March 2013 that they wished to terminate the contract the following day. The judge concluded that the purported termination did not comply with the contract and that the contract continued to subsist.
A quantity surveyor’s report commissioned by the defendants valued completed but unpaid work at €21,820.45, which the defendants later paid. They also alleged that some work was defective and relied on the report in support of those allegations. The judge treated the alleged defects as a cross-claim arising from the same contract, rather than determining whether the work was defective.
Applying principles from earlier cases, the court concluded that the defendants had established a prima facie basis for an equitable set-off and that the contract contained no evidence displacing that set-off. It therefore held that the issues were not suitable for summary proceedings and should be referred to a plenary hearing.
The judgment does not determine the strength of either side’s case at that hearing. The judge said the parties remained free to proceed, while suggesting they consider whether an alternative resolution could avoid further court costs. The source does not record a final determination of the claim or a costs or interest order.