The High Court has allowed three companies to amend their claim against Howth Estate Company and Julian Gaisford-St Lawrence over costs incurred for a proposed nursing home at the former Deer Park Hotel in Howth.
In a judgment delivered on 12 June 2020, Mr Justice Allen granted the plaintiffs liberty to amend their statement of claim to include allegations about negotiations to sell the estate to Tetrarch Capital. The ruling concerns the pleadings in the case; it does not decide whether the allegations are true or whether the plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement or another remedy.
The plaintiffs say they relied on a 2016 memorandum of understanding and later assurances while spending money on the redevelopment proposal. They claim that €387,450 was paid to architects and project managers, and that their work and expenditure continued until April 2018. They seek reimbursement of vouched planning costs or other relief.
The defendants admit the memorandum was made but say it was non-binding, subject to contract and set a deadline for a full agreement that was never signed. They also plead that a nursing home was contrary to the land’s amenity zoning and that the plaintiffs knew, or should have known, by February 2017 that planning permission was unlikely. The defendants deny the plaintiffs’ allegations about assurances and continued encouragement.
The proposed amendment would add the plaintiffs’ allegation that, while engaging with them about the nursing home project, the defendants were also working with Tetrarch Capital towards a sale of the castle and demesne. The plaintiffs say this supports their case that it would be unconscionable for the defendants to withdraw from the project without reimbursing their expenditure. The defendants reject the allegation that they covertly negotiated with another party while the nursing home proposal remained live.
Mr Justice Allen said the amendment application was not the stage to assess the claim’s merits. He found that the proposed allegations could properly be added and that the defendants had not established that they were frivolous or vexatious, or that allowing them would cause material prejudice to a fair trial. He said any discovery arising from the amended pleadings would be for the judge dealing with the discovery motions to determine.
The order gives the plaintiffs permission to amend their statement of claim in the terms of a draft exhibited to an affidavit. The judge invited the parties to discuss consequential orders, including costs, and indicated that formal time limits for amended pleadings might be needed. The judgment does not record a final decision on those consequential matters.