Judgment: 2024-03-20 · Court archive

High Court remits Noel Moran recovery contract dispute to Western Circuit

Justice Garrett Simons said the damages that might reasonably be awarded did not exceed the Circuit Court’s €75,000 threshold. The damages assessment remains for that court.

High Court · [2024] IEHC 138

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • An Garda Síochána
  • Noel Moran
  • Garrett Simons (Judge)
What

Justice Garrett Simons said the damages that might reasonably be awarded did not exceed the Circuit Court’s €75,000 threshold. The damages assessment remains for that court.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • County Mayo
  • Western Circuit
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 11 April 2024

    The judge proposed that High Court-stage costs be reserved to the Circuit Court, with any costs awarded to Moran limited to the Circuit Court scale. He also expressed the provisional view that the company should receive the costs of the remittal motion. Either party could seek a different costs order by contacting the registrar within seven days to arrange a return hearing on 11 April 2024.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has remitted a contract dispute between Noel Moran, trading as Noel Moran Recovery, and Black Star Management Ltd, trading as The Recovery Network, to the Circuit Court in County Mayo. The case concerns towing and storage services Moran provided as a subcontractor under an agreement with the company, which held a contract with An Garda Síochána.

The High Court has remitted a contract dispute between Noel Moran, trading as Noel Moran Recovery, and Black Star Management Ltd, trading as The Recovery Network, to the Circuit Court in County Mayo. The case concerns towing and storage services Moran provided as a subcontractor under an agreement with the company, which held a contract with An Garda Síochána.

In a judgment delivered on 20 March 2024, Mr Justice Garrett Simons concluded that the range of damages the trial court might reasonably award did not exceed the Circuit Court’s €75,000 monetary jurisdiction. He ordered the proceedings remitted to the Western Circuit, County Mayo, where the written agreement was signed and the services were to be carried out.

Moran claims €263,073.04 for storage fees he says accrued after the company terminated the agreement in December 2020. He calculated the sum using daily rates of €35 or €50 for vehicles that remained at his premises. The company disputes that he is entitled to storage fees and says he retained vehicles and used the charges as leverage. Its counterclaim alleges wrongful retention of vehicles, trespass or conversion, and failure to remit €13,715. Those matters have not been decided in this judgment.

The judge said any recoverable post-termination storage damages were more likely to be assessed using the agreement’s rates—€5.69 a day for short-term storage and €162.60 per quarter for long-term storage—or commercial wholesale rates. He found no credible basis on the application for the €35 or €50 daily rates, which were payable by vehicle owners to An Garda Síochána and were not the subcontractor’s agreed fee. He also considered that the trial court would likely examine whether Moran had taken reasonable steps to limit his losses by cooperating with removal of the vehicles.

The ruling concerned only whether the case should remain in the High Court or be remitted. The judge stressed that his provisional view of the claim’s likely value does not bind the Circuit Court, which must decide after hearing evidence and full argument whether any damages are due. The Circuit Court retains power to award more than €75,000 in a remitted claim for unliquidated damages.

The judge proposed that High Court-stage costs be reserved to the Circuit Court, with any costs awarded to Moran limited to the Circuit Court scale. He also expressed the provisional view that the company should receive the costs of the remittal motion. Either party could seek a different costs order by contacting the registrar within seven days to arrange a return hearing on 11 April 2024.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review