Highfield Distribution Ltd v Pat The Baker Unlimited Company
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Meenan |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IEHC 137 |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 9806 P] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 21 February 2020 |
[2020] IEHC 137
Meenan J.
[2018 No. 9806 P]
THE HIGH COURT
Cause of action – Frivolous or vexatious – Bound to fail – Defendant seeking an order striking out the proceedings on the basis that they were bound to fail – Whether the proceedings were bound to fail
Facts: The defendant, Pat The Baker Unlimited Company, issued a motion to dismiss the action of the plaintiff, Highfield Distribution Limited, on the grounds that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or that any cause of action disclosed was frivolous or vexatious or, in the alternative, sought an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court striking out the proceedings on the basis that they were bound to fail. Central to the defendant’s application was its contention that it neither has, nor had, any involvement or legal relationship with the plaintiff which was related to the plaintiff’s cause of action.
Held by Meenan J that on their face, the pleadings did disclose a cause of action. Meenan J held that the closest which the plaintiff came to making a case against the defendant was the statement in the affidavit of Mr O’Callaghan, on the part of the plaintiff, stating that the defendant “at the material time were trading under the style and title of Irish Pride Bakeries Unlimited ...”. Meenan J noted that no documentary evidence had been produced to support this contention; it was merely an assertion without more. It was clear to Meenan J that the plaintiff had, in fact, named the wrong defendant in these proceedings; having done so, the proceedings were bound to fail.
Meenan J held that, by reason of the foregoing, he would accede to the application of the defendant and dismiss the proceedings.
Proceedings dismissed.
This is the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action and/or that any cause of action disclosed is frivolous or vexatious or, in the alternative, an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court striking out the proceedings on the basis that they are bound to fail. It should be stated at the outset that on their face, the pleadings do disclose a cause of action, but what this Court is concerned with is whether the cause of action is frivolous and/or vexatious and/or bound to fail.
Central to the defendant's application is its contention that it neither has, nor had, any involvement or legal relationship with the plaintiff which is related to the plaintiff's cause of action.
The defendant's application is grounded on an affidavit of Mr. Declan Fitzgerald, Director of the defendant company. In his affidavit, he states that on 11 November 2015 Irish Pride Fine Foods Unlimited Company (the Company) was incorporated. The company is engaged in the business of wholesale and retail bakery and confectionery. Subsequent to its incorporation, the company purchased certain assets of Irish Pride Bakeries Unlimited Company ( “IPB”), which had previously traded as Irish Pride Bakeries. IPB went into receivership on 16 June 2015, and the plaintiff purchased certain assets from the receivers.
On the takeover of the assets by the plaintiff, each supplier was issued with a letter in standard form, which stated, inter alia: -
“Please note that the company did not, as part of the acquisition of the business (IPB), assent to an assignment or transfer of any rights and/or obligations of Irish Pride or the receivers pursuant to any contract or agreement in place between you and Irish Pride or the receivers. In addition, any monies/debts due to you up to 12th December, 2015 are not for the account of the company as these liabilities have not transferred to the company.”
It should be noted, in this context, that the plaintiff had been providing certain services to the previous owners of IPB. On the takeover by the company, transport services were put out to tender and the plaintiff tendered for these transport services. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in this regard.
Mr. Declan Fitzgerald states in his affidavit, the following: -
“41. I say that for the purposes of clarity, I say that the defendant company is the owner of Irish Pride Fine Foods Unlimited Company and I hold the role of managing director in both companies. While both companies are engaged in the business of wholesale and retail bakers and confectioners they operate as two separate and distinct businesses …”
The plaintiff does not dispute this.
In his replying affidavit, Mr. Dennis O'Callaghan, Director of the plaintiff, states: -
“3. I say that on the 19th day of January, 2015, the plaintiff company entered into a written contract with the defendants who at that material time were trading under the style and title of Irish Pride Bakeries Unlimited.”
Mr. O'Callaghan exhibits a copy of this written contract.
This contract clearly states that it is between the plaintiff and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dooley v Clancy Project Management Ltd Trading as Clancy Construction
...it and reliance was placed by the Second Defendant on the decision in Highfield Distribution Ltd v. Pat The Baker Unlimited Company [2020] IEHC 137. It was submitted that there was no need to seek to cross-examine any party in circumstances where “ the documents speak for themselves”. The p......