The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision refusing summary judgment in a claim by recruitment business owner Cecila Onyenmezu for €749,353.40 over temporary and relief staff supplied to nursing-home companies in 2016 and 2017.
The appeal court found that the defendants had not provided credible evidence that the key payment terms were uncertain or had not been agreed. It invited the parties to make short further submissions on the amounts for which judgment should be entered against each defendant. It did not itself specify those amounts in this judgment.
Onyenmezu, trading as Norlia Recruitment Service, said she supplied staff to the defendants between May 2015 and January 2018. She said the 2015 services had been paid for, but nothing had been paid for services in 2016 and 2017. Her claim relied on a Service Level Agreement (SLA), which she said had been adopted by the nursing-home companies, and on later correspondence about rates and charges.
The defendants’ evidence in the summary judgment application said the claimed sums were not owed, alleging that Norlia had failed to follow agreed protocols and had breached the SLA. The High Court rejected that defence, finding no basis in the affidavit evidence for the claimed protocols or for treating their alleged breach as grounds for non-payment. The defendants did not appeal those findings.
At the High Court hearing, the defendants also argued that uncertainty over the contractual arrangements required a full hearing. The High Court accepted that argument and refused summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal said the defendants’ affidavits had not disputed that the SLA applied, that the November 2016 rates had been agreed, or that the invoices reflected those terms and services provided. The court noted that the defendants had continued to use Norlia’s services and had made payments in December 2016 on that basis.
The appeal court said objections raised in oral submissions about invoice calculations and the workers listed on invoices had not been properly put forward or substantiated with evidence. It also declined to consider a Statute of Frauds argument raised only on appeal, noting it had not been identified earlier and the plaintiff might have wished to provide evidence in response.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court had erred in finding the contractual uncertainty justified refusing summary judgment. It invited submissions of up to 1,000 words on the amounts to be entered against the defendants. The court stated its provisional view that the plaintiff was entitled to costs in both courts; the defendants could seek a hearing on costs by notifying the Court of Appeal office within seven days of the judgment.