The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by Paul Blanchfield against a €75,000 award to Mark Reynolds for services connected with a property development in France. The court held that the High Court should not have assessed the claim on a quantum meruit basis because that claim had not been pleaded and the evidence did not establish a proper valuation.
The appeal concerned an order made after a two-day High Court hearing in April 2011. The High Court had found that there was no concluded agreement requiring Blanchfield to pay Reynolds €200,000. That finding was not appealed by Reynolds and was not at issue before the Supreme Court.
Reynolds had claimed that Blanchfield agreed to pay €200,000 for services relating to the development at Chateau Jouarries, Carcasonne, France, with payment due on practical completion. His pleadings sought that specific contractual sum, along with further or other relief. They did not plead a claim for payment based on the value of the services or unjust enrichment.
During the High Court hearing, the trial judge asked whether the case could proceed on a quantum meruit basis if no definite agreement was established. Blanchfield’s counsel objected, saying the case had been pleaded as a claim for the agreed €200,000. The trial judge said he would decide the matter on an “all or nothing basis” if that objection stood. After finding no concluded agreement for €200,000, the judge nevertheless assessed the services at €75,000 and ordered Blanchfield to pay that amount and costs.
On appeal, Blanchfield argued that the alternative basis of payment had not been part of the pleaded case and that there was no evidence to value the services or establish the benefit to him personally. The Supreme Court agreed. It said Reynolds had not sought to amend his pleadings, and Blanchfield had not had advance notice or an opportunity to plead a response and present evidence addressing such a claim.
The court also found that the High Court had no evidence on which to make a reasoned valuation of the services or the benefit allegedly received. It rejected the argument that the €75,000 figure could stand as a conservative estimate and declined to send the matter back to the High Court for a new valuation, since the evidential gap arose from the way the claim had been pleaded.
The Supreme Court therefore allowed Blanchfield’s appeal against the quantum meruit award. The judgment does not disturb the unappealed finding that there was no concluded agreement to pay €200,000.