D&L Properties Ltd -v- Yolanda Ltd [2017] IECA 11 (01 February 2017)

D&L Properties Ltd -v- Yolanda Ltd [2017] IECA 11 (01 February 2017)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct in refusing to strike out the proceedings. The existence and enforceability of the alleged agreement, compliance with the Statute of Frauds, and the factual disputes as to the parties and terms of the agreement could not be resolved without a trial. The plaintiff's case, taken at its high watermark, was not bound to fail and there was evidence, albeit tenuous, suggestive of a note or memorandum and possible part performance. The inherent jurisdiction to strike out should be exercised sparingly and only where it is clear the claim cannot succeed, which was not the case here.

Citation
[2017] IECA 11
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: D & L Properties Limited; Defendant/appellant: Yolanda Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Strike Out Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Statute of Frauds, Inherent Jurisdiction, Summary Dismissal, Joint Venture, Fiduciary Duty, Misrepresentation, Conversion
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Statute of Frauds Inherent Jurisdiction Summary Dismissal Joint Venture Fiduciary Duty +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D & L Properties Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Yolanda Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Refusing to Strike Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious, or bound to fail under the inherent jurisdiction of the court due to alleged non-compliance with s.2 of the Statute of Frauds (Ireland) Act 1695
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is otherwise frivolous or vexatious under Order 19, Rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
  3. 3 Whether there exists a sufficient note or memorandum in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct in refusing to strike out the proceedings. The existence and enforceability of the alleged agreement, compliance with the Statute of Frauds, and the factual disputes as to the parties and terms of the agreement could not be resolved without a trial. The plaintiff's case, taken at its high watermark, was not bound to fail and there was evidence, albeit tenuous, suggestive of a note or memorandum and possible part performance. The inherent jurisdiction to strike out should be exercised sparingly and only where it is clear the claim cannot succeed, which was not the case here.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the High Court refusing to strike out the proceedings is affirmed.