The High Court has refused applications by two defendants to be released from a dispute over a construction project in Cabinteely, Dublin, ruling that the claims could not be dismissed as bound to fail at this stage.
Patrick and Ellen Coen say they engaged Mark Doyle and Mark Doyle Building Contractors Limited for a design-and-build project. Mr Doyle denies personal contractual liability and says he acted only as a director of the company. The court said it was for the trial judge to determine who the contracting parties were.
The plaintiffs also seek to hold Ballinagam Upper Consulting Limited, which was incorporated after the project, liable for any damages against the second defendant. They allege the companies had similar management and trading names and that assets were transferred between them. They seek an order treating the businesses as a single entity.
The applications were formally brought under rules concerning the addition or removal of parties. The judge said those rules did not provide the relevant basis for removing defendants merely because they disputed being contracting parties. He treated the applications in substance as requests to dismiss the claims under the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
On the claim against Mr Doyle, the judge considered an unsigned draft contract naming the limited company, a building-control certificate apparently signed by Mr Doyle personally, invoices that did not identify a limited company, and evidence described in the judgment about his involvement in the project. He concluded there was a credible basis for the plaintiffs’ case and that the dispute required oral evidence and cross-examination. The earlier draft contract was entitled to only limited weight on the material then before the court.
On the claim against Ballinagam Upper Consulting, the judge said there was a significant factual dispute about its status and its relationship with the second defendant. The plaintiffs relied on the companies’ names, directors, financial information and an accountant’s report alleging that assets had been transferred at an undervalue. The defendants said the later company was established for tax-planning purposes. The judge said the issues could be tested through discovery and at trial.
The court refused both applications. It did not decide who was party to the construction contract or whether the corporate veil should be pierced. The judge gave a provisional view that the plaintiffs and fourth defendant were entitled to costs, with submissions on any different order to be heard on 23 June 2023. He also directed the first and third defendants to deliver defences within 21 days.