The High Court ordered the release to the first defendant of €75,000 held in an interest-bearing account, together with accrued interest, and refused the plaintiffs’ requests for repayment of a property deposit and arbitration fees.
In a judgment delivered on 24 June 2016, Mr Justice Michael White said the plaintiffs’ repayment claim remained alive in the proceedings and was not statute-barred. However, he found the court had no jurisdiction to order repayment because the plaintiffs’ 2005 plenary summons had not sought the deposit in the alternative, and the earlier 1999 proceedings were spent.
The defendants had applied in November 2014 for the retained money to be released to the first defendant, or for the relevant part of a 2008 order to be discharged. The plaintiffs counter-applied for repayment of a €38,156 deposit paid under a 1998 contract to buy land, plus €19,949 in arbitrator’s fees and interest.
The dispute arose from a contract to buy a house, offices, farmyard, garden and other lands at Killuragh Glen, Fermoy, County Cork. A disagreement over a map included areas the arbitrator found the seller was not entitled to convey. The plaintiffs insisted on the original map; the seller maintained it should be amended. The arbitrator awarded a €47,000 reduction in the purchase price and held that the disputed areas should not be transferred to the plaintiffs.
The court reviewed earlier proceedings, including a 2008 order directing that €75,000 be retained pending resolution of the plaintiffs’ claim. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the order prevented them from pursuing repayment until the property was sold, and said they could have sued for the deposit and fees without asserting a claim to the property. The judge also held that the Supreme Court’s grant of “liberty to apply” did not itself allow the parties to relitigate concluded matters, while finding ambiguity in the later High Court orders meant the claim had remained alive in these proceedings.
The judgment also said the court could not deal with a separate dispute over a 2012 costs order, which arose in separate proceedings. The final order directed release of the €75,000 and accrued interest to the first defendant and refused the plaintiffs’ reliefs. The judge added that, even if the court had jurisdiction, it would be unconscionable to return money to the plaintiffs from the retained sum.