The High Court dismissed proceedings brought by Highfield Distribution Limited against Pat the Baker Unlimited Company, finding that the wrong company had been named as defendant. The decision followed a motion by Pat the Baker to dismiss the claim as frivolous or vexatious, or as bound to fail.
The dispute concerned transport services previously provided by Highfield Distribution to the owners of Irish Pride Bakeries Unlimited. That company went into receivership in June 2015, and Highfield later purchased certain assets from the receivers. Irish Pride Fine Foods Unlimited Company was incorporated in November 2015 and bought certain assets of Irish Pride Bakeries. Pat the Baker owned Irish Pride Fine Foods, but the companies operated as separate businesses, a point Highfield did not dispute.
After the asset purchase, transport services were put out to tender. Highfield tendered but was unsuccessful. In an affidavit opposing the motion, Highfield director Dennis O’Callaghan said the plaintiff had entered a written contract in January 2015 with the defendants, who he said were then trading as Irish Pride Bakeries Unlimited. The contract itself named “Irish Pride Bakeries”; Pat the Baker was neither named nor referred to. The court said no evidence supported the assertion that Pat the Baker had traded under that name, or the separate claim that Highfield had supplied Pat the Baker exclusively for more than 20 years.
The court applied principles governing applications to strike out proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction. It noted that this is an exceptional power, used sparingly, and that a court should not decide the merits of a claim through a summary hearing. The question was whether there was a credible basis for suggesting that the asserted facts could be established at trial.
Mr Justice Meenan concluded that the claim that Pat the Baker had traded as Irish Pride Bakeries Unlimited was unsupported and amounted to a bare assertion. He found that Highfield had named the wrong defendant and that the proceedings were bound to fail. The court therefore granted Pat the Baker’s application and dismissed the proceedings. The judgment did not determine any claim against another company.