Moylist Construction Ltd -v- Doheny & others [2016] IESC 9 (04 March 2016)

Moylist Construction Ltd -v- Doheny & others [2016] IESC 9 (04 March 2016)

The proceedings were too complex, involving mixed questions of law and fact, and could not safely be determined within the confines of a motion to dismiss as being bound to fail. The default position is that cases should go to trial unless it is clear there is no risk of injustice.

Citation
[2016] IESC 9
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Moylist Construction Limited; Defendant/respondent: Thomas Doheny; Defendant/respondent: Deloitte & Touche; Defendant/respondent: Ulster Bank Limited; Defendant (not Involved in Appeal): Tom O’Carroll
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Proceedings as Bound to Fail
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction to Dismiss, Summary Disposal, Priorities in Property, Receivership, Contractual Licence, Mortgage Registration
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Inherent Jurisdiction to Dismiss Summary Disposal Priorities in Property Receivership Contractual Licence +1 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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moylist Construction Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Thomas Doheny

Defendant/respondent

Deloitte & Touche

Defendant/respondent

Ulster Bank Limited

Defendant/respondent

Tom O’Carroll

Defendant (not Involved in Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Proceedings as Bound to Fail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings were appropriately dismissed as bound to fail under inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether legal and factual issues were too complex for summary disposal
  3. 3 Whether Moylist had a sustainable claim to possession or priority over Ulster Bank's mortgage

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were too complex, involving mixed questions of law and fact, and could not safely be determined within the confines of a motion to dismiss as being bound to fail. The default position is that cases should go to trial unless it is clear there is no risk of injustice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of High Court dismissing proceedings as bound to fail discharged
  • Proceedings to continue in High Court