Sheehan v Breccia & Ors [2019] IECA 234 (31 July 2019)

Sheehan v Breccia & Ors [2019] IECA 234 (31 July 2019)

The only fair issue that could have justified the interlocutory injunction—the implied duty of good faith—was removed by the Flynn decision. The remaining claims are for damages only and cannot support the continuation of the injunction. The trial judge erred in law by applying the wrong test and by considering that a broad discretion existed to maintain the injunction where no fair issue justifying permanent injunctive relief remained.

Citation
[2019] IECA 234
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Joseph Sheehan; First Defendant/appellant: Breccia; Second Defendant: Irish Agricultural Development Company; Third Defendant: Blackrock Hospital Limited; Fourth Defendant: George Duffy; Fifth Defendant: Rosaleen Duffy; Sixth Defendant: Tullycorbett Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Shareholder Agreements, Implied Terms, Good Faith, Security Enforcement, Damages, Conspiracy, Misuse of Confidential Information
Equity Commercial Law Banking Law Interlocutory Injunctions Shareholder Agreements Implied Terms Good Faith Security Enforcement +3 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Sheehan

Plaintiff/respondent

Breccia

First Defendant/appellant

Irish Agricultural Development Company

Second Defendant

Blackrock Hospital Limited

Third Defendant

George Duffy

Fourth Defendant

Rosaleen Duffy

Fifth Defendant

Tullycorbett Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory injunction should be discharged following the removal of the implied duty of good faith as a fair issue to be tried
  2. 2 Whether remaining claims (conspiracy, misuse of confidential information, inducement of breach of contract, intentional interference with economic interests) could justify continuation of the injunction
  3. 3 Whether a claim for damages alone can support an interlocutory injunction restraining enforcement of security

Ratio Decidendi

The only fair issue that could have justified the interlocutory injunction—the implied duty of good faith—was removed by the Flynn decision. The remaining claims are for damages only and cannot support the continuation of the injunction. The trial judge erred in law by applying the wrong test and by considering that a broad discretion existed to maintain the injunction where no fair issue justifying permanent injunctive relief remained.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction granted by Noonan J. on 22 December 2014 and continued on 26 January 2015 is discharged.