Kelly v Fennell & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 82 (28 January 2025)

Kelly v Fennell & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 82 (28 January 2025)

Only those amendments to the Statement of Claim which were agreed by the defendants are permitted. The remaining proposed amendments are refused as they introduce new claims based on new facts, are contradictory to previous pleadings, and their late introduction causes substantive and logistical prejudice to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 82
Parties
Plaintiff: Aidan Kelly; First Named Defendant: Ken Fennell; Second Named Defendant: BCM Global ASI Limited (formerly Link ASI Limited); Third Named Defendant: Havbell DAC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Procedural Posture
High Court Plenary Action / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Statute of Limitations, Appointment of Receiver, Mortgage Enforcement, Consumer Protection Act 2015, Power of Attorney, Unjust Enrichment
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking Law Consumer Protection Amendment of Pleadings Statute of Limitations Appointment of Receiver Mortgage Enforcement +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidan Kelly

Plaintiff

Ken Fennell

First Named Defendant

BCM Global ASI Limited (formerly Link ASI Limited)

Second Named Defendant

Havbell DAC

Third Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Plenary Action / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to include new factual and legal claims, including those based on the Statute of Limitations and Consumer Protection Act 2015; whether the proposed amendments cause prejudice to the defendants; whether the amendments constitute new claims based on new facts or merely clarify existing claims.

Ratio Decidendi

Only those amendments to the Statement of Claim which were agreed by the defendants are permitted. The remaining proposed amendments are refused as they introduce new claims based on new facts, are contradictory to previous pleadings, and their late introduction causes substantive and logistical prejudice to the defendants, particularly in relation to the Statute of Limitations and loss of evidence. The court's discretion to allow amendments is not exercised in favour of the plaintiff for the contested amendments due to the prejudice and delay.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Leave granted to amend the Statement of Claim in terms agreed by the defendants as set out in the judgment and scheduled Amended Statement of Claim.
  • Leave refused for all other proposed amendments contested by the defendants.