High Court strikes out redundant motion as issues already decided in main judgment.

THE HIGH COURT

[2025] IEHC 468

2008 547 S

BETWEEN

JOSEPH CORCORAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

EASSDA GROUP LIMITED, EASSDA IRELAND LIMITED

AND ALASTAIR JACKSON

DEFENDANTS

AND

PROMONTORIA EAGLE LIMITED AND KEN FENNELL

NOTICE PARTIES

2016 6043 P

BETWEEN

KEN FENNELL

PLAINTIFF

AND

JOSEPH CORCORAN AND KATHERINE CORCORAN

DEFENDANTS

2020 4050 P

BETWEEN

JOSEPH CORCORAN AND KATHERINE CORCORAN

PLAINTIFFS

AND

PROMONTORIA EAGLE LIMITED AND KEN FENNELL

DEFENDANTS

RULING of Mr. Justice Brian O’Moore delivered on the 19th day of August, 2025.

1. On the 18th of December 2020, in the 2016 proceedings, the Corcorans filed a Notice of Motion seeking the following reliefs:

1. An Order that the Plaintiff herein, Ken Fennell, was not validly appointed as Receiver on the 24th of July 2015 over ALL THE ASSETS of Eassda Ireland Limited;

2. An Order striking out the third claim of the Plaintiff in the General Endorsement of Claim, seeking an order that the Building Agreement made between Eassda Ireland Limited and the Defendants, dated the 4th of August 2005 is at an end;

3. An Order that the Plaintiff herein, Ken Fennell, was not validly appointed as Receiver on the 21st of August 2015 over the Site at 6 Glenair Manor, Delgany, Co. Wicklow;

4. An Order striking out the second claim of the Plaintiff in the General Endorsement of Claim, seeking an order that the Contract for Sale of Site 6 Glenair Manor, Delgany, Co. Wicklow, made between Alastair Jackson and the Defendants dated the 4th August 2005 is at an end.

2. On the 31st of July 2025, in light of yet another dispute between the parties as to the final orders to be made by me, I asked my registrar to inform the parties that I had decided to strike out the motion with no order as to costs. The parties were asked to notify my registrar if they wished to receive a formal ruling. No further submissions were invited. The parties had ample opportunity during the lengthy trial to say whatever they wanted to say about this motion. On the 31st of July the Corcorans requested such a ruling, which I now provide.

3. The original motion was eventually adjourned to the trial. After it was issued, importantly, Sanfey J. gave liberty to all parties to deliver amended pleadings in the 2016 proceedings. The Corcorans delivered a heavily amended Defence in March 2022. As the February 2023 written submissions of counsel for the Promontoria interests note (at paragraph 2), “the amended pleadings encompass the issues to be determined in the following applications…” including the motion of the 18th of December 2020. This position was expressly accepted by the Corcorans (at paragraph 3 of their written submissions of March 2023). In other words, the position adopted by the parties at trial was that the issues raised in the motion were now included in the pleadings of the 2016 plenary proceedings.

4. That approach was clearly correct. Of the substantive issues agitated in the Notice of Motion, the first (relating to the appointment of Mr. Fennell as receiver over all the assets of Eassda Ireland Limited) is pleaded at paragraph 2C of the Amended Defence of the Corcorans; the second (relating to the striking out of the claim that the Building Agreement is at an end) is pleaded at paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim; the third (relating to the appointment of Mr. Fennell over the site at 6 Glenair Manor) is pleaded at paragraph 1 of the Amended Defence; the fourth (relating to the striking out of the claim that the contract for the sale of land is at an end) is pleaded at paragraph 20 of the Statement of Claim. In fact, these four issues recurred throughout the trial of the plenary proceedings, and the references which I have given to the pleadings are merely examples of how and where the main issues raised in the motion are also to be found in the pleaded case.

5. The first of these issues was addressed by me in my substantive judgment (for example, at paragraph 340); the second issue was decided in favour of the Promontoria interests, and constitutes a central part of the main judgment; the third is also dealt with in the substantive judgment (for example, at paragraph 339); on the fourth issue, a key finding of the main judgment in favour of the Promontoria interests,was that the contract for the sale of land is at an end.

6. As noted in the main judgment, at paragraph 15, I ruled at the start of the trial (and without objection) that the plenary proceedings would be decided by reference to “the oral evidence and such documents as were properly admissible at the hearing.” In my judgment of December 2024, I have decided all four substantive issues raised in the motion in accordance with that ruling. Having done so, the motion is spent and I will simply strike it out. As the motion did not give rise to any extra costs (at least before me), and as the Promontoria interests have been awarded their costs of the relevant actions and applications, I will make no order with regard to the costs of the motion.