The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court order allowing a statutory receiver to add breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims to a dispute over lands in Clonee, Co Meath. The appeal concerned permission to amend the claim; the court did not decide whether the new claims would succeed.
The proceedings arose from a 2004 contract under which the defendants and Liam Mallon agreed to sell a 25 per cent interest in lands to Hollioake Limited for €4.6 million. The company also contracted separately to acquire the remaining 75 per cent. The agreement provided for 24 homes to be built on four plots, including eight designated units for the vendors.
The company paid €1 million on signing and a further €1.271 million in June 2006. It later ran into financial difficulty, and a receiver was appointed in 2012. The judgment records that the company built and sold some houses and delivered one designated unit, but could not complete its contractual obligations.
The receiver began proceedings in 2013 seeking partition of the lands or, alternatively, their sale and distribution of the proceeds. In 2019, he applied to amend the claim. The proposed amendments included a claim that the defendants had failed to provide deeds of assurance after a request, and claims seeking repayment or other relief on the basis that retaining the payments would unjustly enrich them.
The defendants opposed those additions. They argued, among other things, that the claims introduced new facts and that the unjust enrichment claim was bound to fail. The High Court allowed the amendments. On appeal, the Court of Appeal said the contract claim was rooted in the contract already in dispute and would not materially expand or delay the proceedings. It also found the unjust enrichment claim was adequately pleaded for amendment purposes and could not be said, on the material before it, to necessarily fail.
The receiver’s case is that the request for deeds in May 2017 triggered an obligation to provide them. The defendants’ position is that any obligation arose when the lands were partitioned in December 2006, making the claim time-barred. The Court of Appeal expressly left the meaning of the contract and the limitation defence for trial, if not dealt with as a preliminary issue. It also made no prediction on the merits of unjust enrichment.
The appeal against permission to amend was dismissed in substance: the court found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s order. The separate appeal concerning the High Court costs order, along with the costs of the appeal, remains outstanding for a later hearing.