The High Court has sent a solicitors’ €2.32 million claim against Alan and Noreen Hynes to a plenary hearing, finding that the defendants had raised arguable defences. Mr Justice McDermott made no final ruling on the disputed issues and did not dismiss the claim.
The solicitors sought summary judgment over a cheque dated 30 November 2007, drawn on an A&N Properties account and made payable to their client account. The plaintiffs said the cheque related to money advanced for the purchase and refinancing of a site at Moongate, Clonard, Co Wexford. They alleged that funds released by Allied Irish Banks for that purpose were instead used towards a deposit on a property at Cunningham Road, Dalkey, and that the defendants later acknowledged the debt.
The defendants disputed that account. In affidavits, Alan Hynes said the cheque was given because the solicitors had failed to discharge a liability relating to Moongate Investors, and that it was not to be presented until investors put him in funds. The judgment records that the cheque was never physically presented to the bank. The court identified a factual dispute over whether presentation was conditional on the defendants receiving those funds, as well as a legal issue about whether the cheque had been dishonoured under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.
The judge said those matters could be raised at a plenary hearing. He found that the affidavits disclosed an arguable defence on the cheque issue, but rejected the defendants’ request to dismiss the claim on that ground at this stage.
The defendants also argued that cause of action estoppel barred the claim because related issues had featured in 2013 Circuit Court proceedings. The judgment recounts competing submissions about the earlier counterclaim and the effect of the Circuit Court order, which dismissed counterclaims and made a separate possession order. The judge found identifiable legal and factual issues remained to be determined and that this defence also met the threshold for proceeding to a plenary hearing. He was not satisfied that the claim should be dismissed on the affidavits.
The order was to send the matter for plenary hearing. The judgment did not determine whether the €2.32 million was owed, whether the cheque was dishonoured, or whether estoppel ultimately applied.