The High Court found that €152,504 plus VAT remained due to Heatherridge Associates Limited for architectural services, after crediting payments made under an agreement with the defendants. It rejected the firm’s claim for €1,130,418 plus VAT and ruled that no separate claim could succeed on a quantum meruit basis because the parties had an agreement covering the services.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered the judgment on 6 June 2019. The firm had provided services on projects between 2000 and 2009. At a May 2009 meeting, it tabled fees totalling €552,409, but the court found that the proposed amount was not accepted. The first defendant, Hugh Curran, had written in March 2010 that he disagreed with fees that had not been agreed before the work was done.
After a meeting on 8 March 2010, the parties agreed that €225,000 plus VAT would settle the fees, with €25,000 plus VAT paid initially and the balance scheduled over 36 months. A letter misstated the settlement total as €265,000; the judge said emails confirmed the agreed amount was €225,000. The judge found that €72,496 had been paid, leaving €152,504 plus VAT under that agreement.
The court treated evidence from Frank Ennis, the firm’s principal, with considerable caution. It noted that the debt was omitted from the firm’s November 2010 statutory declaration of solvency, which the judge described as false and misleading. The judge said the omission did not prevent the claim from being brought.
In December 2011, the defendants and the liquidator agreed to a reduced settlement of €140,000 plus VAT, payable in 40 monthly instalments. The defendants paid the first instalment, but the court heard that they did not receive further invoices. The judge criticised the liquidator’s failure to pursue the debt for years and his lack of engagement after the defendants sought invoices.
The firm argued that the 2011 reduction was unenforceable under the rule in Pinnel’s case, which generally requires consideration for a creditor’s promise to accept less than an established debt. The defendants argued that the compromise was supported by their waiver of an objection to the claim and by Curran’s personal involvement and the companies’ assumption of each other’s liabilities. The judge rejected those submissions: the debt’s omission did not bar the claim, and the personal involvement and shared liabilities were already features of the March 2010 agreement. He found that the only new term was the reduced amount in return for a repayment schedule, so the 2011 agreement lacked consideration.
The judgment determined the amount due under the March 2010 agreement. The source records that finding; it does not set out a separate formal order for payment.