The High Court has ordered a son suing his mother over an alleged promise by his late father to leave him three commercial units to clarify his claims, after finding that his statement of claim did not set out their nature with sufficient clarity.
The order was made by Ms Justice Stack on 2 February 2022, on the mother’s application to compel replies to a notice for particulars. The judge said the notice contained more than 80 requests. While some were unnecessary, most were appropriate because the statement of claim left the defendant unclear about the case she had to meet.
The plaintiff alleges that his father promised in or about 2009 to leave him three units in a commercial development in Tallaght. The judgment says the plaintiff claims the promise was not honoured. It also describes references in the pleadings to earlier arrangements, including ones from about 2000 and 2005, but says it was unclear how those matters related to the agreement relied on in the case.
Justice Stack ordered formal replies to particulars about the alleged agreement and earlier arrangements; the basis for a claim in quantum meruit or quantum valebat; and claims concerning the administration of the estate. The plaintiff must clarify the material facts and causes of action relied on, or state in the replies if any of those claims are being abandoned.
The judge did not require replies to requests seeking evidence, including some details about matters raised in the defence. She said the plaintiff need not identify witnesses, but should identify who allegedly acted for each party in making or receiving any oral representations or concluding any oral agreement relied on in a pleaded cause of action. The plaintiff is required to provide material facts, not evidence supporting the claims.
The ruling concerned the clarity of the pleadings and the particulars sought. It did not determine whether the alleged promise was made or whether the plaintiff is entitled to the units or other relief. A separate discovery motion was adjourned for mention until the particulars dispute was resolved; the judge said the issues and appropriate discovery could not yet be identified.