The High Court set aside a €469,702 default judgment against JV Cummins (Supermarkets) Ltd after finding that the company had intended to contest the proceedings and was taken by surprise by the way judgment was entered.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Hogan on 13 January 2014, concerns a claim brought by James Stafford as liquidator of Robe Construction Ltd, which is in liquidation. The plaintiff’s pleadings say the companies agreed in March 2008 that Robe Construction would build a mixed-use commercial development in Ballinrobe, Co Mayo.
Robe Construction claimed that nearly €2.268 million had been paid but that €469,702 remained due for the contractual works. It also claimed a separate €41,144 omission allowance. Those were claims in the proceedings, not findings made in this judgment.
The plaintiff first sought summary judgment in 2011. The Master of the High Court adjourned the claim to a plenary hearing in November that year and directed the plaintiff to file a statement of claim, followed by a defence. Robe Construction filed its statement of claim in May 2012. JV Cummins did not immediately file a defence; its solicitor said further instructions were needed from an engineering expert because of the claim’s complex calculations.
In September 2012, the plaintiff sought judgment in default and an assessment of damages. On 3 December, the parties agreed to an extension for filing a defence, and Moriarty J made an order by consent allowing four weeks. Meanwhile, the plaintiff had separately obtained judgment in the Central Office on 30 November for the liquidated claim of €469,702, waiving its claims for interest and unliquidated amounts in that application.
Justice Hogan said the parties had been at cross purposes: JV Cummins’ solicitor had overlooked a warning that the plaintiff intended to seek Central Office judgment. The judge considered that oversight pardonable in the circumstances and noted that the company intended to contest the case and that its defence and counterclaim were bona fide. It filed them on 21 December 2012.
The court set aside the default judgment, concluding that allowing it to stand would be unjust. The judgment did not determine the underlying construction claim. Justice Hogan noted that the defence and counterclaim had already been filed and expressed the hope that the proceedings would move swiftly to trial.