The High Court has dismissed a construction company’s claim for payment over renovation work at a Lucan pub, after finding that fraudulent invoices and repeated changes to the claim had undermined the trial and left the company without a reliable case.
Mr Justice Noonan gave judgment on 3 October 2016, at the end of the plaintiff’s evidence in a trial that had taken 28 hearing days. The defendants had applied for a non-suit and dismissal. Their counsel said they intended to call evidence if the application failed.
W. L. Construction Limited claimed sums allegedly due under a building contract for work at the Lord Lucan, a licensed premises at Finnstown Shopping Centre. The work began in February 2006. The company’s claim concerned the initial renovation phase and a later fit-out, but the parties disputed the contract documents and whether items were fixed-price sums or provisional amounts requiring supporting records.
The judge found that company principal William Loughnane had altered invoices for unrelated work and presented them as support for the claim. Among the examples, an invoice for €700 was changed to €7,000 and relabelled for the Lord Lucan. The judge found that Mr Loughnane was responsible for the alterations and had lied under oath. He also found that quantity surveyor Patrick O’Kane’s evidence was unreliable: the figures in his reports and testimony changed repeatedly, and much of his initial assessment relied on information supplied by Mr Loughnane.
The amount claimed shifted substantially during the proceedings. The judge recorded figures ranging from €28,691 to more than €370,000. On 11 May 2016, the plaintiff’s surveyor put the balance at €61,141, including newly added items; without those items, he said the claim was €28,691. Later, on 28 June, he gave a further figure of €152,220.05.
The defendants argued both that the conduct amounted to an abuse of process and that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case. The judge accepted both grounds. He concluded that the shifting claims and dishonesty had seriously disrupted the trial, and that the plaintiff’s evidence did not establish that any sum was due. He also considered the likely additional cost to the defendants of continuing, noting an uncontradicted assertion that the company appeared insolvent and the difficulty of recovering costs.
The court therefore granted the application and dismissed the claim without hearing the defendants’ evidence. The ruling resolved the claim at this procedural stage; it did not determine the defendants’ counterclaim, which the judgment described as outside the application.