The High Court has refused an application by Francis and Patricia Hanrahan to be removed from a construction company’s claim over €201,756.14 said to remain unpaid for fitting out a Dublin shoe shop.
The ruling does not decide who contracted for the work or whether either defendant is liable. Ms Justice Bolger said the defendants had not shown, at this stage, that they were unnecessary parties. Evidence at trial, including discovery and oral testimony, may clarify the contractual relationship and whether the defendants can have any liability.
Noel Conway Construction Limited says it contracted with Francis Hanrahan personally. Mr Hanrahan says he acted as agent for Carly Agencies Limited, which traded as Tryst Shoes. The company was the leaseholder of the shop. The court said there was no evidence that Mr Hanrahan told the contractor he was acting for the company, and the company was first identified in the evidence as involved in a payment in September 2019.
The court recorded that the work was done solely at the retail premises and that the Hanrahans derived no personal benefit from it beyond any benefit connected with their involvement in the company. The contractor’s first invoice was addressed to Mr Hanrahan and later amended to the company after a company payment. A second invoice was addressed to both defendants at their home.
The contractor also alleges that Mr Hanrahan transferred his interest in the couple’s family home to Patricia Hanrahan to put the asset beyond reach of a creditor. The judgment contains conflicting dates for that conveyance: the background gives 13 February 2020, while later passages refer to February 2019. The judge noted that no explanation had been offered for the transfer beyond Mr Hanrahan’s position that he had no debt at the time and could deal with his property as he chose. She said that absence of an explanation was not helpful to the defendants’ application.
The company entered liquidation in June 2021. The statement of claim seeks judgment for the alleged debt against Mr Hanrahan and asks for the conveyance to be set aside against Ms Hanrahan under section 74(3) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The defendants argued that insolvency provisions prevented the claim from proceeding without leave; the contractor said it was not seeking relief against the company in the statement of claim.
The judge refused the application to remove the defendants. She gave an indicative view that costs should follow the unsuccessful motion, with any costs order stayed until the entire proceedings are resolved. The matter was listed for mention on 21 July 2022 for submissions on costs and final orders.