Begley v Damesfield Ltd & ors (Approved) [2020] IECA 171 (26 June 2020)

Begley v Damesfield Ltd & ors (Approved) [2020] IECA 171 (26 June 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that while there was cogent evidence before the trial judge to support the existence of a collateral contract, it was not open to the trial judge to grant a remedy for breach of a collateral contract that was not pleaded or argued by the respondent. The requirement for fair procedures and the purpose of pleadings precluded the trial judge from finding for the respondent on a claim not advanced in the proceedings.

Citation
[2020] IECA 171
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael Begley; Defendant/appellant: Damesfield Limited; Defendant/appellant: John Lally; Defendant/appellant: The Jolly Management Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Collateral Contracts, Pleadings, Remedies for Breach of Contract, Parol Evidence Rule, Implied Terms, Procedural Fairness
Contract Law Civil Procedure Collateral Contracts Pleadings Remedies for Breach of Contract Parol Evidence Rule Implied Terms Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Begley

Plaintiff/respondent

Damesfield Limited

Defendant/appellant

John Lally

Defendant/appellant

The Jolly Management Company Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding evidence to support a collateral contract between the appellant and respondent
  2. 2 Whether it was open to the trial judge to grant a remedy for breach of a collateral contract not pleaded in the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that while there was cogent evidence before the trial judge to support the existence of a collateral contract, it was not open to the trial judge to grant a remedy for breach of a collateral contract that was not pleaded or argued by the respondent. The requirement for fair procedures and the purpose of pleadings precluded the trial judge from finding for the respondent on a claim not advanced in the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court order awarding damages for breach of collateral contract set aside
  • No order for damages against the appellant on the basis of collateral contract