The High Court has refused an application by D. and F. Partnership Limited to restrain Horan Keogan Ryan Limited, an architects’ firm, from presenting a winding-up petition over a claimed debt of €935,294.62.
Mr Justice Ryan held that the company had not established a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds about whether it was liable for the fees. The ruling concerned an interlocutory injunction, before any winding-up petition was presented. The court refused the injunction; it did not make a winding-up order.
The claim arose from architectural work for a planned private hospital in Letterkenny. In April 2007, the architects sent a fee proposal to The Health Partnership, a registered business name of the plaintiff company. Deidre Foley-Woods endorsed it on the company’s behalf. The judgment records that six invoices were paid: four from an account in the name of North West Healthcare Development Co. Limited and two by the plaintiff. The remaining claim comprised €664,722.27 in fees and €262,903.35 in interest.
The plaintiff argued that it had acted as agent for a disclosed principal, North West Health Care Ltd, and that the principal—not the plaintiff—was responsible for the fees. It relied in part on an unsigned draft appointment deed naming that company as employer. In the alternative, it said the amounts were genuinely disputed. The architects maintained that their written agreement was with the plaintiff and pointed to correspondence recording acknowledgements of the outstanding debt.
The judge found that the April 2007 proposal and endorsement formed a clear written agreement between the plaintiff and the architects. He said the plaintiff had provided no documentary support for its assertion that it or Ms Foley-Woods was acting as agent. The draft deed was never executed and could not establish that the parties had changed. Nor did payment of some invoices from another company’s account alter the agreement. The judgment also noted that the plaintiff had not addressed or rebutted the correspondence recording acknowledgements of the debt.
The court concluded that the plaintiff had shown no substantial bona fide dispute about the debt and that use of the statutory procedure was not an abuse of process. The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused. The judgment records that a 21-day notice under section 214(a) had been served and its period had expired, but does not decide any subsequent petition or make a final winding-up order.