The High Court has ordered James Elliott Construction Limited to provide further particulars of its fraud and deceit claim over construction material supplied by Irish Asphalt Limited. The order concerns what the contractor alleges about the material, the testing regime and the defendants’ roles; it does not decide whether the alleged fraud occurred.
In a judgment delivered on 20 November 2014, Ms Justice Costello said the defendants were entitled to understand the case they had to meet. The plaintiff alleges that Irish Asphalt knowingly or recklessly sold material as Clause 804 or 3 Inch Down when it did not meet the relevant standards, and that the other defendants procured the alleged deceit. Those remain allegations in the proceedings.
The court directed the plaintiff to answer specified requests, including questions about applicable tests and standards, alleged failures of the material, representations about product quality, and the individual defendants’ alleged involvement. It also ordered details of remedial works the plaintiff says it had to finance on certain projects.
Some particulars about whether tests were omitted or carried out and then ignored or suppressed must be provided after discovery agreed or ordered in the case. The judge said pleading fraud in the alternative was permissible at this stage, given the plaintiff’s stated inability to know which account applied before discovery. The plaintiff must clarify its position before trial, and the case cannot go to trial without detailed particulars.
The judge refused other requests, finding the defendants already had sufficient particulars or that the information sought was evidence rather than pleading. She also rejected the defendants’ applications to strike out the proceedings, concluding that the outstanding particulars did not make this an appropriate case for striking out. The judgment addressed procedural applications only; it did not determine liability or damages.