The High Court has granted summary judgment to Seahound Wind Developments Ltd for €32,835.13 in statutory late-payment interest claimed from Mid Clare Renewable Energy DAC over contributions to a substation project in Co Clare.
Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell delivered the judgment on 20 June 2024. The underlying proceedings began with a summary summons in September 2020 claiming €650,000, interest and costs. The defendant paid the principal sum after the proceedings began. The remaining dispute concerned interest on the late payment.
The companies were involved in developing an extension to the Booltiagh electricity substation, which was to serve the plaintiff’s wind farm and those of four other parties, including the defendant. Under a letter agreement dated 25 August 2016, the defendant’s contribution to the wider works was capped at the lower of €650,000 or 5.82% of the works’ costs. A separate €257,311 component related to transformer works and was payable once the relevant payment obligations had crystallised and were supported by vouching documents.
The judge awarded €2,943.64 in interest on the transformer component. He found that the plaintiff had provided the required supporting documents on 19 August 2020, and that the defendant had not shown a defence to interest accruing from that date.
The balance of the interest claim concerned €392,689 of the wider contribution. The defendant argued that payment depended on the plaintiff providing documents requested for the defendant’s bank. The judge found no evidence that the bank had requested the documents. He also noted that the defendant’s solicitors had said in March 2020 that funds had been drawn down and were available for payment. The judge concluded that the payment obligation was triggered when the project reached financial close in October 2019 and that the defendant had not established a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence.
The court also rejected the defendant’s broader argument that any failure by a supplier to meet a contractual obligation removes entitlement to statutory interest. The judge said the relevant obligations were those relating to entitlement to the payment in question. He found the plaintiff’s calculation sufficiently explained and rejected the claim that it had applied the wrong interest rate.
The court said it would enter judgment for €32,835.13. The judge’s provisional view was that the plaintiff was entitled to its costs, but he listed the matter for mention on 26 June 2024 to finalise the orders, including costs. The judgment does not state the final costs order.