The High Court has refused an application by three accountants to be removed from professional negligence proceedings brought by George Raymond, Ruth Raymond and Lamworth Developments Limited. The court did not determine who had contracted to provide the accountancy services; it held that the disputed evidence needed to be tested at trial.
The motion sought to strike out the claim against Eamonn Moyles, Philip Young and Ian Campbell, who traded as Contract Accounting. They argued that the plaintiffs had dealt with CA Limited, the company that invoiced them, and that there was no basis to pursue the accountants personally. The application relied on Order 15 and Order 19 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs’ claim concerns bookkeeping and accountancy services provided for their business. Raymond said in affidavits that he believed he had engaged the three accountants personally after an introduction in 2006, and that he had not been told the contract was with a company. He pointed to correspondence and business documents that referred to Contract Accounting without identifying it as a limited company.
The accountants relied on company records, invoices issued from 2008, bank statements and payment instructions. Those documents identified CA Limited as the business owner or payee. The judge said the invoices supported the view that, by 2008, the services were being provided by a corporate entity. But they postdated the claimed initial engagement by about two years, and other documents could support either side’s position.
Justice Baker found that removing the accountants under Order 15 was not appropriate because they remained necessary parties to the claim as pleaded. On the strike-out application, she said it was unsafe to grant the relief while the parties disputed the contracting arrangements and the evidence required further testing and cross-examination. The applicable threshold was low, and the court could not conclude at this stage that the claim against the three defendants was bound to fail.
The judge refused the relief sought. The question of who contracted with the plaintiffs remains for trial. A separate part of the motion concerning Lamworth Developments Limited, which had been dissolved after being struck off the register, stood adjourned pending an application to restore the company.