The High Court has refused James Elliott Construction Limited permission to add two pleas of deceit to its statement of claim in a dispute involving test results from Bay Lane Quarry.
Ms Justice Costello ruled that the proposed amendments were directed at evidence the defendants might present at trial, rather than clarifying the issues in the case. The company said it wanted to contest any evidence that quarry stone could produce clause 804 and 3 inch down products, and that results suggesting otherwise could not be genuine.
The judge said the proposed allegations did not form part of the company’s case in fraud and were not needed as amendments to its claim. She also found that, if intended as pleas of fraud, they lacked the required particularity and did not tell the defendants precisely what wrongdoing was alleged.
The court stressed that refusing the amendments did not prevent the company from challenging evidence the defendants might produce at trial, including through cross-examination, subject to the ordinary rules governing a plenary hearing.
The judge also granted parts of motions by the fourth defendant, Irish Asphalt Limited, and by the first, second, third and fifth defendants. She struck out specified passages in the company’s replies to requests for particulars that questioned the genuineness or reliability of test results. The judge said those passages were directed at anticipated defence evidence, not particulars of the company’s pleaded claim.
However, she declined to strike out passages in affidavits sworn by the company’s solicitor, finding they were not part of the case the defendants had to meet at trial and caused no prejudice. She also refused a request to remove a paragraph concerning disagreement between solicitors over earlier proceedings.
The ruling addressed pleading and particulars in the existing proceedings. It did not determine whether the test results were genuine or resolve the underlying dispute.