The High Court has dismissed a company’s claim against Val Timon for €75,551.05 over goods and services, after finding its case rested entirely on evidence from Francesca de Catalda that the court did not accept.
In a judgment delivered on 21 July 2011, Mr Justice Hedigan said the claim concerned an invoice issued on 1 August 2008 by Sundogs Rock Productions Limited. Timon denied owing the money and argued that he had dealt with de Catalda personally, not the company.
The dispute followed an informal business arrangement dating from 2004. De Catalda provided decorating and design services for four apartments Timon owned in Killiney and bought goods for him. Their accounts differed over whether she was paid by the hour or could add a mark-up to goods.
The disagreement intensified over furnishings for an apartment in Montpellier, France. Timon said he had set a budget of just over €12,000 and that goods delivered were unsuitable and not what he had agreed to buy. He said he paid €11,540 for some items and later arranged for unwanted furniture to be returned to Ireland. De Catalda said the delivered furniture was what he had bought. The court described conflicting evidence about the delivery.
The judgment also examined whether Sundogs Rock Productions had any contractual relationship with Timon. The company’s co-founder and director, Neil Bailey, testified that it had been formed for his music group and was never authorised to carry on design or decoration work. The court noted that the invoice was the only one the company had issued to Timon, that no documentary evidence of a contract between them existed, and that the company’s case depended on de Catalda’s evidence.
Justice Hedigan considered evidence about purchases at the Violette shop, invoices and credit card payments. He found that shop proprietor Jennifer Murray’s evidence was reliable and that a statement de Catalda had obtained from her was inaccurate. The judge also recorded that de Catalda later visited Murray’s shop during the proceedings, admitted the visit and apologised for what the court described as inappropriate conduct.
The judgment criticised de Catalda’s conduct and credibility. It concluded that the plaintiff company had not proved its case and dismissed the claim. The judgment gives no separate damages award or further order.