The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by an architectural firm in liquidation and five defendants, leaving in place a High Court judgment awarding the firm €187,579.92, including VAT, for unpaid architectural fees.
Heatherridge Associates Limited had claimed €1,130,418 plus VAT for services provided on projects between 2000 and 2009, or alternatively sought payment on a quantum meruit basis. The High Court found that the parties reached an agreement in March 2010 for €225,000 plus VAT in full and final settlement of the outstanding fees. After crediting payments of €72,496, it awarded the firm €152,504 plus VAT.
The firm argued on appeal that an earlier fee arrangement existed and that the defendants had repudiated the March 2010 agreement by stopping payments. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding that no binding agreement had been reached before March 2010. It said the €552,407 fee figure discussed in May 2009 was an offer, not an accepted agreement.
The defendants made payments under the March 2010 arrangement after receiving invoices until October that year. The court noted that no further invoices were issued during the following period, and that the defendants sought invoices from the liquidator in 2012 and offered to pay on receipt. It found no basis to conclude that the defendants had repudiated the March 2010 agreement.
The High Court had rejected the defendants’ reliance on a December 2011 agreement to settle the debt for €140,000 plus VAT, finding it unenforceable for want of consideration under the rule in Pinnel’s case. That decision was not appealed. The Court of Appeal said the March 2010 agreement therefore remained in place.
The appeal court also upheld the High Court’s decision to award the firm only half of its costs up to the defendants’ €200,000 lodgement in November 2018, and to award the defendants their costs from then on. The High Court had cited the firm’s unsuccessful €1.13 million and quantum meruit claims, which had added to the length and expense of the case. The court also upheld the decision to make no costs order over a separate application for leave to bring professional-negligence proceedings.
The firm’s request for interest was refused. The appeal court said the delay by the firm in pursuing payment weighed against an award. Its order dismissed both the appeal and the defendants’ cross-appeal. Costs would normally follow that outcome, subject to either party applying within 14 days for a different order.