Lakeland Agri Ltd v Aidan Hand

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Garrett Simons
• Judgment Date: 07 January 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] IEHC 13
• Docket Number: 2019 No. 225 S.
• Date: 07 January 2021

Between

Lakeland Agri Limited

Plaintiff

and

Aidan Hand

Defendant

[2021] IEHC 13

2019 No. 225 S.

THE HIGH COURT

Summary judgment – Stay – Counterclaim – Plaintiff seeking summary judgment – Whether it would be inequitable to allow the plaintiff to enter and execute judgment in advance of the hearing and determination of the counterclaim which the defendant wished to pursue

Facts: The plaintiff, Lakeland Agri Ltd, applied to the High Court for judgment as against the defendant, Mr Hand, in the sum of €125,676.38 (together with interest). The plaintiff claimed that this sum was due and owing in respect of goods sold to the defendant. The defendant accepted that he was indebted, in principle, to the plaintiff but resisted the application for judgment on the basis that he wished to pursue a counterclaim in respect of the alleged breach of a separate contract for haulage services which had existed between the parties.

Held by Simons J that, having applied the principles set out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prendergast v Biddle (unreported, 31 July 1957) to the circumstances of this case, he was satisfied that the plaintiff’s application to enter judgment should not be stayed pending a hearing and determination of the defendant’s counterclaim as the nature of the counterclaim to be advanced by the defendant was simply too vague. Simons J held that it would be inequitable to delay the plaintiff from recovering what was, in effect, an admitted debt.

Simons J held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as against the defendant in the sum of €125,676.38 (together with interest). The parties were requested to agree the precise form of order and the appropriate figure for interest. Simons J held that, in default of agreement, the court would rule on the matter on the basis of written legal submissions.

Application granted.

Appearances

Edward Farrelly, SC and Harry Buggy for the plaintiff instructed by Crosskerrys Solicitors

Richard Lyons, SC for the defendant instructed by Tony Donagher Solicitor

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons delivered on 7 January 2021

INTRODUCTION

1 This matter comes before the High Court by way of an application for judgment as against the defendant in the sum of €125,676.38 (together with interest). The plaintiff claims that this sum is due and owing in respect of goods sold to the defendant. The defendant accepts that he is indebted, in principle, to the plaintiff but resists the application for judgment on the basis that he wishes to pursue a counter claim in respect of the alleged breach of a (separate) contract for haulage services which had existed between the parties.

2 The central question to be determined in this judgment is whether it would be inequitable to allow the plaintiff to enter and execute judgment in advance of the hearing and determination of the counterclaim which the defendant wishes to pursue. This falls to be decided by reference to the principles set out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in ( Prendergast v. Biddle unreported, 31 July 1957).

BACKGROUND TO THE PROCEEDINGS

3 These proceedings were instituted by way of summary summons, and come before the court on the basis of affidavit evidence only. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to attempt to resolve any factual disputes on this application. The narrative which follows is premised largely on matters which are not in controversy. Where a particular matter is in dispute, this will be highlighted.

4 It is common case between the parties that their commercial relationship was governed by two contracts. The first contract is a contract for the sale of goods. The plaintiff is a limited liability company and is engaged in the business of, inter alia, selling agricultural goods and related products. The defendant had been a customer of the plaintiff, and had purchased feedstuff and other goods from the plaintiff. The terms and conditions governing the sale of goods are set out on the invoices issued by the plaintiff. Condition 2 of the terms and conditions require a purchaser to make a payment within one month from the end of the month of the sale of the goods.

5 The plaintiff's claim relates to goods sold and delivered to the defendant, on credit terms, during the period 18 May 2018 to 31 October 2018. The plaintiff has exhibited a statement of account which indicates that there is a total sum of€125,676.38 outstanding (which includes interest in the sum of €1,204.23). The defendant has not disputed the calculation of the debt owing, and has accepted on affidavit that he is indebted, in principle, to the plaintiff in respect of the goods purchased by him.

6 The second contract between the parties had been in respect of the provision of haulage services by the defendant to the plaintiff (“ the haulage services contract”). The defendant owns and operates a number of trucks and trailers and has been involved in the transport of foodstuff on behalf of the plaintiff for a number of years. The trucks and trailers are, seemingly, painted in the livery of Lakeland Dairies.

7 The defendant, in his second affidavit (filed on 16 December 2019), has described the contract as a “ serious commercial contract between the parties”. It is further averred that the defendant invoiced the plaintiff a total sum of €152,010.90 in 2016; €220,120.14 in 2017; and €115,258.68 for the six months to June 2018.

8 The terms and conditions of the haulage services contract have not been reduced to writing. The defendant has, however, exhibited a document which addresses one aspect of the contract as follows.

“22nd April 2017

AGREEMENT between AIDAN HAND, Magoney, Inniskeen, Dundalk, Co. Louth and LAKELAND AGRI LTD. Lough Egish, Co. Monaghan.

The agreement refers to the method of payment for agricultural input goods purchased by Aidan Hand from Lakeland Agri

The Agreement states that Aidan Hand agrees to offset all monies due to him by Lakeland Agri for haulage services supplied by Aidan Hand to Lakeland Agri, against amounts owed by Aidan Hand to Lakeland Agri for the purchase of agricultural input goods. Full offset shall continue until Aidan Hand's account is within credit terms.”

9 The version of the offset arrangement which has been exhibited is not signed, but it is accepted on behalf of the plaintiff that the above arrangement had been entered into.

10 As appears, the defendant had agreed, in effect, that monies due to him under the haulage services contract would be used to defray amounts owed by him under the contract for the sale of goods.

11 The defendant maintains that the circumstances in which the haulage services contract came to an end in August 2018 are such as to give rise to a claim for damages on his part.

12 The precise circumstances in which the contract came to an end are very much in dispute. In brief, the plaintiff's position is that the haulage services contract operated on a casual basis, and there was no obligation on the defendant to undertake any haulage job offered to him nor was there any obligation on the plaintiff to offer haulage jobs to the defendant. It is further said that there was no obligation on either party to provide any minimum period of notice prior to termination of the contract. The...