Kelly v. Kelly [2003] IEHC 627 (20 January 2003)

Kelly v. Kelly [2003] IEHC 627 (20 January 2003)

The plaintiff failed to establish any payment or consideration to the defendant or the relevant company for the properties in question, and much of the claim was speculative or unsupported by evidence. However, the court found that the plaintiff may have a limited claim relating to services rendered or monies...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 627
Parties
Plaintiff: Cathal Kelly; Defendant: Matthew Kelly; Interested Party: Official Assignee; Interested Party: Coalport Building Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim as Vexatious/abuse of Process
Outcome
Claim not struck out in its entirety; limited claim allowed to proceed subject to strict procedural directions.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Vexatious Litigation, Beneficial Interest in Property, Company Law, Waiver of Rights, Bankruptcy Compromise
Civil Procedure Property Law Bankruptcy Abuse of Process Vexatious Litigation Beneficial Interest in Property Company Law Waiver of Rights +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cathal Kelly

Plaintiff

Matthew Kelly

Defendant

Official Assignee

Interested Party

Coalport Building Company Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim as Vexatious/abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim should be struck out as vexatious and an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has a beneficial interest in certain properties or companies
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pursue a claim for monies or services rendered

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish any payment or consideration to the defendant or the relevant company for the properties in question, and much of the claim was speculative or unsupported by evidence. However, the court found that the plaintiff may have a limited claim relating to services rendered or monies expended on the North King Street premises, and this aspect should not be struck out. The court imposed strict procedural directions to protect all parties' interests and the integrity of the bankruptcy compromise.

Court Disposition

Claim not struck out in its entirety; limited claim allowed to proceed subject to strict procedural directions.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to execute necessary waivers as envisaged in the Supreme Court compromise.
  • Sale of the Orbit Bar (North King Street) to be completed and proceeds lodged in court.