Reynolds v Blanchfield

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Laffoy
• Judgment Date: 04 February 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IESC 3
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [Appeal No. 219/2011],[S.C. No. 219 of 2011]
• Date: 04 February 2016

[2016] IESC 3

THE SUPREME COURT

Laffoy J.

[Appeal No. 219/2011]

Denham C.J.

O'Donnell J.

Laffoy J.

BETWEEN

MARK REYNOLDS

PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

AND

PAUL BLANCHFIELD

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Damages ? Quantum meruit ? Contractual liability ? Appellant seeking to discharge order awarding damages quantum meruit in favour of the respondent ? Whether award was made in error

Facts: The appellant, Mr Blanchfield, requested that the respondent, Mr Reynolds, render services assisting him with a significant property development at Chateau Jouarries, Carcasonne, France. In November 2006 within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the appellant agreed that he would pay to the respondent the sum of ?200,000 in respect of services rendered by the respondent to the appellant and this payment was to fall due on the practical completion of this development. The development was practically completed in September/October 2008 and accordingly the sum was due and owing. Despite request for payment and in breach of the agreement between the respondent and the appellant, the appellant failed to pay the sum of ?200,000 or any sum to the respondent. Following a hearing on oral evidence, the High Court (Kearns P), in April 2011, held that there was not a concluded agreement between the parties for payment of ?200,000. It ordered that the respondent recover against the appellant the sum of ?75,000 and costs of the action when taxed and ascertained, the trial judge having assessed that to be the value of services delivered by the respondent to the appellant. The appellant, citing Mahon v Celbridge Spinning Co. Ltd [1967] IR 1, appealed to the Supreme Court against the trial judge?s order, seeking an order discharging so much of the order as made an award of damages quantum meruit in favour of the respondent on the grounds that: 1) a claim by the respondent based on the principle of quantum meruit formed no part of the respondent?s claim as pleaded, as particularised, or as opened to the High Court on the hearing; 2) there was no evidence of the value attributable to the services the respondent contended that he provided to the appellant before the High Court, there being no witnesses on that matter and no opportunity to cross-examine; 3) there was no evidence of the benefit which was alleged to have accrued to the appellant from those services before the High Court and, in particular, no evidence that such benefit accrued to the appellant personally, as distinct from the appellant?s group of companies; and 4) the issue of granting relief on a quantum meruit basis was raised by the trial judge and neither party invited him to determine the claim on that basis. There was no cross-appeal by the respondent against the finding that there was not a concluded agreement between the parties for the payment of ?200,000 by the appellant to the respondent. The respondent submitted that the trial judge was entitled to determine the issue on a quantum meruit basis and to make the award he made, notwithstanding that the respondent had not pleaded or advanced in any way a claim based on quantum meruit, relying on Duffy v Ridley Properties Ltd [2008] 4 IR 282.

Held by Laffoy J that the claim for relief as pleaded by the respondent in the pleadings before the High Court was founded on the contention that the appellant was contractually liable to the respondent for that specific sum; relief on the basis of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment was not sought, nor were the underlying facts relevant to the establishment of a claim for either such relief pleaded. Laffoy J held that the consequence of the failure to plead those matters from the perspective of the appellant was two-fold: first, the appellant did not have the opportunity to answer the claim for such relief by pleading matters which he would have contended disentitled the respondent to such relief; Secondly, the appellant, not having any advanced knowledge that he would have to meet a claim for such relief at the trial of the action, was not in a position to adduce the appropriate evidence to answer the respondent?s claim. On an examination of the statement of claim, as elaborated on by the replies to notice for particulars, Laffoy J held that it was beyond question that the respondent did not claim relief on a quantum meruit basis and did not plead the factual and legal foundation for entitlement to such relief. That failure, in Laffoy J?s view, should have been totally fatal to the advancement of a claim for such relief at the trial. Laffoy J held that there was no evidence before the High Court from which a reasoned decision could have been made as to the valuation of the quantum meruit.

Laffoy J held that she would allow the appellant?s appeal.

Appeal allowed.

Judgment of Ms. Justice Laffoy delivered on 4th day of February, 2016

Introduction

1 This judgment relates to an appeal of the defendant/appellant (the Appellant) against an order of the High Court of 6th April, 2011 made by Kearns P. (the trial judge) following a hearing on oral evidence. The order recorded the finding of the trial judge that ‘there was not a concluded agreement between the parties for payment of €200,000.00’. It ordered that the plaintiff/respondent (the Respondent) recover against the Appellant the sum of €75,000 and costs of the action when taxed and ascertained, the trial judge having assessed ‘the value of services delivered by the [Respondent] to the [Appellant] in the sum of €75,000.00’. On the appeal, the Appellant seeks an order discharging so much of the order as made an award of damages quantum meruit in favour of the Respondent. There is no cross-appeal by the Respondent against the finding that there was not a concluded agreement between the parties for the payment of €200,000 by the Appellant to the Respondent. Accordingly, the issue which arises on the appeal is whether the award in the sum of €75,000 in favour of the Respondent on a quantum meruit basis was made in error, as the Appellant contends. Peculiarly because of an absence of complexity in the procedures adopted and, in particular, in the manner in which the claim and the defence were pleaded, it is necessary to outline what happened prior to the hearing on oral evidence in some detail.

Procedures/pleadings

2 The Respondent's High Court proceedings were initiated by a summary summons which issued on 29th October, 2008. The material statements in the special indorsement of claim on the summary summons for present purposes were as follows:

‘At the [Appellant's] request the [Respondent] rendered services to the [Appellant] assisting the [Appellant] with a significant property development in which the [Appellant] was involved at Chateau Jouarries, Carcasonne ( sic), France.

In and around November of 2006 within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, the [Appellant] agreed that he would pay to the [Respondent] the sum of €200,000.00 in respect of services rendered by the [Respondent] to the [Appellant] and this payment was to fall due on the practical completion of this development … The development was practically completed in and around September/October 2008 and accordingly the sum due by the [Appellant] to the [Respondent] is now due and owing.

Despite request for payment and in breach of the agreement between the [Respondent] and the [Appellant], the [Appellant] has failed to pay the sum of €200,000.00 or any sum to the [Respondent].’

As the foregoing illustrates, the Respondent was seeking only to recover a debt, a liquidated sum in money, upon a contract. Accordingly, the action was properly brought by way of summary summons in accordance with Order 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986, as amended. There followed the Respondent's prayer for relief which, in addition to a claim for judgment in the sum of €200,000, contained a claim for ‘[s]uch further or other relief as this Honourable Court shall deem meet’.

3 The next procedural step which is of significance is that by order of the High Court (McKechnie J.) made on 15th February, 2010 it was ordered that, an earlier order, which had been made by the Master of the High Court on 19th January, 2010 in which it had been ordered that the Respondent be at liberty to enter final judgment in the sum of €200,000 with interest from 1st November, 2008 together with costs when taxed and ascertained, be vacated. The circumstances in which that order had been made do not bear on the issues on this appeal. It was further ordered that the action stand adjourned to plenary hearing as if the proceedings had been commenced by plenary summons. Directions were given in relation to delivery of pleadings.

4 The Respondent's statement of claim was delivered on 5th March, 2010. As was submitted by counsel for the Appellant on the hearing of the appeal, it was in substance in similar terms to the special indorsement of claim on the summary summons. The relief sought by the Respondent in the prayer for relief in the statement of claim was a verbatim replication of the relief sought in the summary summons: judgment in the sum of €200,000; such further or other relief as to the Court should deem meet; interest pursuant to the Courts Act 1981; and an order for costs.

5 Subsequently, a notice for particulars was raised by the solicitors for the Appellant. The only aspect of the notice of relevance for present purposes is to be found in paragraph (1) in which particulars were sought of each request of the Appellant that the Respondent render services as pleaded in the statement of claim, the particulars sought being – the date, the place and the circumstances of the request and the names of the persons present. The response of the Respondent's solicitors, as well as asserting that the position of the Respondent had been extensively set out in the affidavits already sworn in the proceedings, that is to say, the affidavits...