Judgment: 2022-08-31 · Court archive

High Court awards further €154,250 on settlement debt claim

The court found the defendant had no credible defence to the unpaid balance, but listed the case for final orders and a decision on costs.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 499

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Brendan Mullin (Plaintiff)
  • John G. Burns Limited (Defendant)
  • Garrett Simons (Judge)
What

The court found the defendant had no credible defence to the unpaid balance, but listed the case for final orders and a decision on costs.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Sandymount Avenue
  • Dublin 4
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 6 December 2021

    The €154,250 award is in addition to €125,000 in judgment entered against the company on 6 December 2021, after it conceded it had no defence to that part of the claim. The judgment therefore records awards totalling €279,250, plus applicable interest.

  • 10 October 2022

    The court did not make a final costs order in this judgment. Justice Simons gave a provisional view that the plaintiff was entitled to costs and listed the proceedings for final orders and costs allocation on 10 October 2022.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court rejected that defence. It held that the settlement required the defendant to pay €276,250 in four scheduled instalments, and that the clause about the plaintiff favourably considering the defendant for building work was aspirational and subject to contract. It did not create an enforceable obligation to retain the defendant or make payment conditional on a building contract.

The High Court has awarded Brendan Mullin a further €154,250 against John G. Burns Limited in a dispute over unpaid instalments under a settlement agreement. The court also ordered interest on that sum from 20 December 2019 under the Courts Act 1981, with further interest accruing from the date of judgment.

The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 31 August 2022, followed the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. The defendant admitted it had not kept to the settlement payment schedule but argued that payment depended on being retained for building work at a Sandymount Avenue property in Dublin 4. It alleged that fees for that work were to be set off against the debt.

The court rejected that defence. It held that the settlement required the defendant to pay €276,250 in four scheduled instalments, and that the clause about the plaintiff favourably considering the defendant for building work was aspirational and subject to contract. It did not create an enforceable obligation to retain the defendant or make payment conditional on a building contract.

The defendant also relied on an email and two earlier agreements said to have been made in 2017. The judge found the email could not alter the settlement’s terms in light of its entire agreement clause; in any event, it was marked subject to contract and did not amount to a commitment. The settlement had resolved the earlier litigation, and the judge said the earlier contractual dispute could not be revived through interpretation of that agreement.

The €154,250 award is in addition to €125,000 in judgment entered against the company on 6 December 2021, after it conceded it had no defence to that part of the claim. The judgment therefore records awards totalling €279,250, plus applicable interest.

The court did not make a final costs order in this judgment. Justice Simons gave a provisional view that the plaintiff was entitled to costs and listed the proceedings for final orders and costs allocation on 10 October 2022.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review