The High Court has dismissed all remaining claims in a dispute over the development and operation of a bar and restaurant in Scott’s Building, Cobh, known as the Titanic Queenstown Bar and Bistro.
The claims were brought by businessman Vincent Keaney against James Sullivan, Michael Nolan and Julia Nolan. After earlier orders narrowed the case and required repeated amendments to the pleadings, the trial proceeded on the statement of claim delivered on 1 July 2008. The court said Keaney did not proceed against the second named defendant. In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2008, Mr Justice Feeney dismissed all claims against the first, fourth and eighteenth named defendants.
A central dispute concerned what agreement Keaney and Nolan had reached in 2000. The judge found that a document dated 27 March, described as “Heads of Agreement”, was a discussion document and not a binding contract. He found that the agreement was instead contained in a letter from Nolan dated 19 July 2000, which Keaney signed the following day. The court rejected Keaney’s evidence that he had not signed or accepted it.
The court also rejected claims that Nolan had agreed to discharge debts owed by Keaney’s company, Pollexfen Design Limited. The July 2000 agreement did not include such an obligation, the judge found. The claim relating to the neighbouring Tregan building also failed: the court found that an earlier offer was not accepted and that a later opportunity to participate in its purchase was conditional on Keaney contributing money, which he did not pay.
Sullivan faced claims of negligence, breach of duty and breach of contract, including an alleged failure to disclose a conflict of interest. The court found there was no contract between Sullivan and Keaney and no evidence that Sullivan’s work caused Keaney loss. It also found Keaney knew of Sullivan’s business relationship with Nolan.
The remaining claim against Julia Nolan concerned a 2004 deed of assignment for Scott’s Building. The court rejected allegations that the deed had been backdated or that its consideration was blank or unpaid. It found that Nolan’s assumption of property debt was the agreed consideration and that the deed was valid and enforceable. The court also held that a 2003 deed of release barred claims relating to the earlier agreement.
The judgment records that all claims against the three remaining defendants were dismissed. It does not set out a separate costs order in the supplied text.