The High Court has struck out John Harrington's claims against a Northern Ireland slurry-equipment company, its director and an employee, finding that his case was based on an untenable attempt to recast a company transaction as his personal contract.
The dispute concerned an umbilical slurry system supplied by SRF Limited, trading as SlurryQuip. Harrington argued that he personally contracted with SRF and its director Richard James Fitzpatrick and claimed the system was defective. SRF maintained that the purchaser was Autotech Harrington & Son Co Limited, a company associated with Harrington.
The dispute followed District Court proceedings in Nenagh in which SRF obtained default judgment against that company for €6,360 plus €560 costs on two later invoices.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy examined the contemporaneous invoices, emails, payment records and correspondence. He found that the evidence did not support Harrington's assertion that he bought the system personally or that Fitzpatrick contracted in his own right. The strongest evidence indicated that Autotech Ireland was the purchaser, although the judge said Autotech Motors Ltd in Northern Ireland was another possible corporate buyer. Either way, Harrington himself was not the contracting party.
The court also rejected Harrington's allegations that employee Ahyett Rosapa had fraudulently manufactured later invoices. It found she had acted in the ordinary course of her employment and that there was no credible evidence of fraud or personal liability.
The judge held that complaints about the invoices, the alleged defects and the identity of the purchaser could and should have been raised in the District Court proceedings. Launching separate High Court proceedings instead was an impermissible collateral attack and breached the rule against re-litigating matters that should have been dealt with earlier.
The claims against SRF, Fitzpatrick and Rosapa were struck out as bound to fail, frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process. Harrington's counter-motion was also struck out. Separate dismissal motions by the solicitor defendants were not determined in this judgment.