The High Court has directed Eamonn Carthy to provide Fieldfisher Ireland Solicitors with replies to specified particulars in his case against multiple defendants, within eight weeks of the judgment dated 24 March 2023. The order followed a motion by Fieldfisher seeking replies to its notice for further and better particulars. It did not decide the underlying allegations.
Carthy’s statement of claim alleges, among other things, that defendants misled courts through manufactured evidence, deceit and misrepresentation in proceedings concerning a possession order. The judge described the allegations as serious and noted that the pleading did not precisely distinguish between defendants. They remain allegations in the material before the court; this ruling made no finding on their truth.
Carthy did not attend the hearing despite service of the motion papers, so the motion proceeded in his absence. In a replying affidavit, he described the case as a trust matter and said a solicitor at Whitney Moore had been appointed trustee. The judge found no evidence that the solicitor accepted such an appointment and rejected the trust argument as an answer to Fieldfisher’s request. The action, the court said, was brought by Carthy in his own name.
The judge ordered answers to particulars seeking details of the alleged misleading of the court, the allegations concerning events on 30 March 2017 and 2 March 2020, the duties said to be owed, how and when those duties arose, the asserted damage, and aspects of the pleaded contract. For the contract request, the order was limited to identifying its alleged date or dates and the named Fieldfisher representative involved. Two identical sub-questions about duties need be answered only once.
Other requests were refused or narrowed. The judge would not require Carthy to state whether he was in default under security documents, explain why a Circuit Court order was not appealed, confirm his knowledge of certain matters, provide supporting evidence for allegations, or state his intention about joining his children to the proceedings. The court also declined to require particulars about steps taken under the alleged contract, which it said might be relevant if estoppel had been pleaded.
The order concerned the information needed to understand parts of the claim. It did not determine the merits of the action or grant the broader reliefs Carthy had sought in his pleading.