Leahy v OSB Group Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Allen
• Judgment Date: 26 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 193
• Docket Number: Appeal Number: 2024/161

Between/

Michael Leahy

Plaintiff

and

OSB Group Limited, Surteco GmbH and Eirfoam Limited

Defendants

[2025] IECA 193

Faherty J.

Allen J.

Meenan J.

Appeal Number: 2024/161

2025/41

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Discovery – Order 19 of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Damages – Plaintiff seeking orders striking out the second and third defendants’ defence – Whether the High Court correctly identified and applied the appropriate legal principles

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Leahy, had an idea for a new business manufacturing laminated worktops. Key to the success of the business was his ability to source edgings that would match the laminate surface. Mr Leahy’s case was that the second and third defendants, Surteco GmbH and Eirfoam Ltd, promised that they could and would provide him with suitable edgings and failed to do so. In 2010 he sued the defendants for damages. Mr Leahy twice applied to the High Court for orders pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts striking out the second and third defendants’ defence. His first such application was refused by Dignam J on 13 June 2024 for the reasons given in a written judgment delivered on 7 June 2024 ([2024] IEHC 346). The second was refused by Quinn J on 6 February 2025 for the reasons given in an ex tempore judgment delivered on the same day. The judgment and order of Dignam J also dealt with an application to strike out the second and third defendants’ defence for failure to comply with an order for discovery. Mr Leahy appealed to the Court of Appeal against both judgments and orders.

Held by Allen J that, regarding the first appeal, while on the one hand Mr Leahy recognised that the purpose of the jurisdiction conferred by O. 31, r. 21 is to ensure compliance with orders for discovery, his core argument was that the second and third defendants should have been punished for the several blunders of their solicitor, Mr O'Neill. Allen J was satisfied that in dealing with the discovery limb of Mr Leahy’s motion, Dignam J correctly identified and applied the appropriate legal principles and that his appeal must be dismissed. Allen J noted that so much of the first appeal as was directed to what was loosely described as the O. 19 limb was not pursued.

Allen J held that, regarding the second appeal, the jurisdiction to be found in O. 19, r. 28(2)(ii), (iii) and (iv) does not permit the resolution of contested questions of fact. Allen J found that Mr Leahy had failed to identify any error in the judgment of Quinn J and his appeal must be dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.

NO REDACTION NEEDED

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Allen delivered on the 26 ^th day of September, 2025

Introduction

1 . In 2003 or 2004 the plaintiff, Mr. Michael Leahy, had an idea for a new business manufacturing laminated worktops. He acquired premises, bought a specialised machine, and engaged a manager. He had an established relationship with the first defendant which was a supplier of laminated boards. Key to the success of the business was his ability to source edgings that would match the laminate surface.

2 . The second defendant is a German company which manufactures thermoplastic edgebands. The third defendant is the second defendant's Irish representative.

3 . It is common case that in 2004 and 2005 there were dealings between Mr. Leahy and the second and third defendants. It is common case that it was hoped and perhaps expected by all that the second defendant would be able to provide suitable edgings. Mr. Leahy's case – in very broad terms – is that the second and third defendants promised that they could and would provide him with what he wanted and failed to do so. In 2010 he sued the defendants for damages.

4 . The starting point of the second and third defendants' defence is that they – in particular the second defendant – endeavoured to identify and source edgings which would be satisfactory to Mr. Leahy with a view to securing orders for edgings but that they are not legally liable for any failure – if any – to provide the edgings which Mr. Leahy wanted. They deny that there was any contract with Mr. Leahy or that they made any of the representations or misrepresentations which they are alleged to have made or that they gave any of the assurances they are alleged to have given. They deny that the losses claimed – which is purely economic loss – is recoverable in law. And they claim that the losses claimed are unfounded and speculative; and grossly exaggerated, unreasonable, unforeseeable and irrecoverable.

5 . Mr. Leahy – who represents himself – has twice applied to the High Court for orders pursuant to O. 19, r. 28 of the Rues of the Superior Courts striking out the second and third defendants' defence. His first such application was refused by Dignam J. on 13 ^th June, 2024 for the reasons given in a written judgment delivered on 7 ^th June, 2024 ( [2024] IEHC 346). The second was refused by Oisín Quinn J. on 6 ^th February, 2025 for the reasons given in an ex tempore judgment delivered on the same day. The judgment and order of Dignam J. also dealt with an application to strike out the second and third defendants' defence for failure to comply with an order for discovery. This judgment deals with Mr. Leahy's appeals against both judgments and orders.

The pleadings

6 . The action was commenced by plenary summons issued on 11 ^th March, 2010 by which the Mr. Leahy claimed damages for negligence, breach of duty, breach of contract, negligent misstatement and misrepresentation.

7 . The statement of claim was delivered on 20 ^th January, 2011. It commenced with a brief explanation of Mr. Leahy's business plan and his purchase – on 6 ^th April, 2004 – of his specialised BAZ machine, and moved on to a narrative of Mr. Leahy's dealings or alleged dealings with each of the defendants. The statement of claim suggested that Mr. Leahy's first engagement with the second defendant was in May, 2004 when – by arrangement with the third defendant – he travelled to the second defendant's factory in Germany. This meeting was described by Mr. Leahy as a specification meeting of the edgings he required for production. The case pleaded was that each of the defendants was made aware of Mr. Leahy's requirements and that the second defendant specified the edgings that would be suitable.

8 . In June, 2004 – according to the statement of claim – Mr. Leahy placed an order with the first defendant for edging and other material, for delivery in September, 2004. The other material was delivered in November, 2004, but not the edgings. In February, 2005 “the edgings as specified” were delivered but these – it was said – were not fit for purpose. The second defendant – it was said – admitted in April, 2005 that the edgings were not fit for purpose but refused to take responsibility for it.

9 . A further meeting was arranged for 1 ^st May, 2005 in Germany. Variously it was pleaded that this meeting was farcical and that the second defendant agreed to change the specification. On 18 ^th May, 2005 – it was said – the proposed new edging was tested and it was agreed that seven of the most important décors would be matched within two to three weeks and delivered within two weeks thereafter to get Mr. Leahy into reduced production; and the balance would follow shortly after to get him into full production. The edgings – it was said – were never delivered and:-

“Arising from the failure of the defendants and each of them to perform the contract to specify correctly the edgings required for the manufacturing process of the plaintiff, to supply correct edgings on time, and to supplying edgings unfit for purpose, the plaintiff has suffered substantial losses and damages.”

10 . The statement of claim claimed €2.8 million for loss of profits, €1.7 million for loss of investment, unquantified damages, interest and costs.

11 . The second and third defendants' defence was delivered on 4 ^th October, 2011. It commenced with a series of pleas:-

• (a) That the statement of claim failed to disclose any legally sustainable cause of action against the second and third defendants;

• (b) That those defendants – there having been no contract between the plaintiff and those defendants – had no liability to the plaintiff;

• (c) That those defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiff;

• (d) That those defendants were not guilty of any misrepresentation;

• (e) That the losses claimed comprised pure economic loss which was not recoverable in Irish law;

• (f) That the losses claimed were unfounded and speculative, alternatively were grossly exaggerated, unreasonable, unforeseeable and irrecoverable.

• (g) That the plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune.

12 . The defence went on (in 58 paragraphs over twelve pages) to plead that those defendants were strangers to Mr. Leahy's dealings with the first defendant, and to deny the allegations made against them. The fact of the meeting in Germany in May, 2004 was admitted, but not the alleged purpose which was – according to the second and third defendants – an exploratory visit. The defence addressed in detail Mr. Leahy's pleas as to the detail of that meeting. The second and third defendants pleaded that the losses complained of were due in whole or in part to Mr. Leahy's contributory negligence in failing to make a business plan in respect of appropriate facilities and premises, and to adequately research his suppliers, purchasers and production techniques.

13 . The defence also admitted the fact of the meeting in Germany on 18 ^th and 19 ^th May, 2005 but denied that the agreement then made was that pleaded in the statement of claim. The defence set out in detail what the second and third defendants contended was then agreed – as to the edgings previously supplied and the edgings that the second defendant might be asked to supply in the future – and pleaded that any liability, if any (which was...