The High Court has set aside an order that allowed judgment to be entered against a son and his company, ruling that the Master of the High Court had no jurisdiction to make it in proceedings begun by plenary summons. The judgment entered on foot of that order was also set aside.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the ruling on 5 February 2013. He extended the time for the first defendant to appeal the Master’s order, which had been made on 9 December 2010 and later amended. The judge said the appeal raised arguable issues about the Master’s jurisdiction and whether the defendants had been given a fair opportunity to answer the claim.
The proceedings were originally brought by Charlotte McCoy, who died on 29 March 2011. Her daughters, Irene Judkins and Marlo McCoy, continued the case as executors of her estate. The claim included €371,000 said to be due under an agreement dated 23 July 2010, as well as other relief. The first defendant, James McCoy, is Charlotte McCoy’s son. He said he had signed the agreement under undue influence and threats; the High Court did not decide whether that proposed defence was valid.
The case had been started by plenary summons in September 2010. After the defendants entered appearances and sought a statement of claim, the plaintiff instead applied to the Master for liberty to enter final judgment using a procedure intended for summary summons proceedings. The statement of claim was delivered on the evening before the motion was heard. The Master refused the defendants’ request for an adjournment and granted liberty to enter judgment. Judgment was entered on 6 May 2011.
Justice Peart held that the rules did not permit the motion for final judgment in a plenary summons case. He also found that refusing an adjournment after the late delivery of the statement of claim deprived the first defendant of an opportunity to consider and present a defence. The order was therefore a nullity, and was set aside along with the judgment entered under it.
The ruling did not resolve the underlying claim or the allegation of undue influence. The judge directed that the case proceed through the ordinary plenary process, including any necessary particulars and a defence. The plaintiffs may later apply to strike out a defence they consider legally inadequate; otherwise, the case may proceed to trial.