The High Court has allowed Aidan Kelly to amend parts of his statement of claim in a dispute over the appointment of a receiver to an industrial property in Bray, while rejecting the amendments opposed by the defendants. The ruling does not determine the underlying dispute or the merits of Kelly’s allegations.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley delivered the judgment on 28 January 2025. The case concerns Unit 20, Beechwood Close Industrial Estate, Boghall Road, Bray, and a mortgage over the property. Kelly, representing himself, applied for permission to amend a statement of claim first delivered in July 2021.
The defendants agreed to a number of proposed changes, including amendments to the description of the second defendant. The court ordered the agreed changes, with the amended claim scheduled to the judgment.
The defendants opposed most of the remaining amendments. Their barrister argued that Kelly had applied late, that several proposed changes introduced new claims based on new facts, and that some contradicted positions in his original claim. The defendants also said earlier acknowledgements of the facts could prevent Kelly from changing his position.
Havbell director Ruth Quinn told the court that documents relating to discussions and payment arrangements from around 2005 had been purged from the predecessor lender’s systems. She said their absence would make it difficult for the defendants to respond to proposed claims relying on events from 2002 and 2005.
Kelly argued that the amendments were needed for a fair determination and that the defendants’ asserted prejudice was not caused by his delay. He also relied on a previous High Court decision concerning amendments to pleadings. Those were submissions, not findings in this application.
The judge applied principles governing amendments to pleadings, including whether prejudice resulted from the late change and whether it could be addressed by terms such as costs. He found that delay in relation to the contested amendments caused substantive prejudice because relevant witnesses and documents were unavailable, and that this prejudice could not be remedied by costs. He also considered that the contested changes included new claims based on new facts rather than clarification of the original claim, and that some reversed earlier pleaded positions.
The court therefore permitted only the amendments the defendants had agreed to and disallowed the contested amendments. It did not rule on the merits or likely success of the proposed claims. The matter was listed for 4 February 2025 to address consequential matters, including costs.