The High Court has refused Sean Hanley’s application to substantially amend his claim over land at Ardsallagh Beg, Co Roscommon, and to join Mary Hannon as a defendant in her personal capacity.
In a judgment delivered on 13 February 2019, Mr Justice Noonan said the proposed changes introduced significant new facts and causes of action more than 12 years after the transaction. He found that Mary Hannon would suffer irremediable prejudice if the amendments were allowed, including because her late husband, Martin Hannon, who was alleged to have made key representations, could no longer give evidence.
Hanley began proceedings in November 2013. His original claim alleged that he bought two sites from Martin and Mary Hannon in February 2005 and that the sale arrangements and planning issues left him unable to build as required. Mary Hannon’s evidence was that Hanley bought one site and his son bought the other. The judgment records that this was not disputed by Hanley. She also denied being administrator of her late husband’s estate, a point he did not contradict with evidence.
The solicitors originally named as defendants were no longer parties by the time of the application. Mary Hannon was the sole remaining defendant. Her defence disputed the claim and relied on a contract condition stating that the site was not sold with the benefit of planning permission and that the sale did not require the purchaser to obtain it.
The proposed amended claim alleged that Martin Hannon had made false and fraudulent representations about obtaining planning permission and providing services, and that earlier planning breaches prevented development. Those were allegations advanced by Hanley, not findings by the court. He also sought rescission of the transaction.
Hanley said he learned of the alleged fraud after consulting an architect in 2016 and a solicitor and counsel shortly before the scheduled trial in July 2017. The court noted that the trial date had to be vacated and the motion was issued in August 2017. Justice Noonan said the matters relied on could, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered earlier, and that no good reason had been given for the delay in pleading the case.
The judge also refused to add Mary Hannon personally. She had denied being the estate administrator in her 2014 defence, and the court considered that she would be significantly prejudiced by being brought into the case at that stage. The judgment did not decide the underlying allegations about the land transaction; it refused the procedural applications to amend the claim and add her personally.