The High Court set aside the renewal of a plenary summons in a dispute over payments from the resale of a Cork property, and dismissed the plaintiff’s related motion for summary judgment against one defendant.
In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2014, Mr Justice Michael White considered three motions: applications by the first and second defendants to set aside the Master of the High Court’s order renewing the summons, and the plaintiff’s application for €28,233 from the second defendant, who had not entered an appearance.
The proceedings concern Keating’s Bakery on Tramore Road, Cork. A partnership including the plaintiff and the second defendant bought the property for €4 million on 1 March 2005 and later resold it. The first defendant, a solicitor, handled conveyancing. The disputed payments included €84,700 to the second defendant for engineering work connected with a planning application and €50,000 to the third defendant as a booking deposit for a property at Rathcormac. The plaintiff said those payments were made without his knowledge or authority; the first and second defendants disputed that. The plaintiff was no longer pursuing claims concerning two other payments. The judge expressly made no findings on the underlying payment dispute beyond what was needed to decide whether the summons should have been renewed.
The summons was issued on 21 October 2011. The Master renewed it on 18 October 2012 for six months, and it was served on the first and second defendants in April 2013. The plaintiff initially said he had delayed service while trying to resolve matters. He later also said he had misunderstood the summons’s service note and had difficulty obtaining legal advice. The defendants denied there had been meaningful settlement efforts. The first defendant said the plaintiff had threatened to picket his office; the plaintiff acknowledged making that threat but disputed having posters prepared for that purpose. The judgment refers to a photographed poster reading “please investigate Ciaran Buckley, Solicitor”.
The court found the plaintiff had not shown any difficulty serving the summons within the initial 12 months, and that both defendants were readily available to be served. It found that the plaintiff had sought to mislead the court on affidavit, that his claim of “copious efforts” to resolve the matter was untrue, and that the method he used was one of threat rather than constructive settlement efforts. His difficulties obtaining solicitors did not, in the judge’s view, provide a good reason to renew the summons.
The judge set aside the Master’s renewal order. As a consequence, he dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The judgment did not determine liability for the disputed payments.