O'Dwyer & anor -v- Boyd & anor [2016] IEHC 365 (24 June 2016)

O'Dwyer & anor -v- Boyd & anor [2016] IEHC 365 (24 June 2016)

The High Court has no jurisdiction to order the return of the deposit or arbitration fees as the claim was not properly pleaded, the original proceedings are spent, and the liberty to apply provision does not permit re-litigation of the underlying claim. Even if jurisdiction existed, the plaintiffs' conduct and delay would make it unconscionable to grant relief.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 365
Parties
Plaintiff: Declan O'Dwyer; Plaintiff: Julia Jones-O'Dwyer; Defendant: Robin Boyd; Defendant: Andrew Dillon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings / Judgment After Plenary Hearing on Motions and Counter Motions
Outcome
Plaintiffs' reliefs refused; order for release of retained funds to first defendant granted.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Deposit Forfeiture, Arbitration, Statute of Limitations, Jurisdiction, Compromise Agreements
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Deposit Forfeiture Arbitration Statute of Limitations Jurisdiction +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Declan O'Dwyer

Plaintiff

Julia Jones-O'Dwyer

Plaintiff

Robin Boyd

Defendant

Andrew Dillon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings / Judgment After Plenary Hearing on Motions and Counter Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the return of deposit and arbitration fees
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute barred
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has no jurisdiction to order the return of the deposit or arbitration fees as the claim was not properly pleaded, the original proceedings are spent, and the liberty to apply provision does not permit re-litigation of the underlying claim. Even if jurisdiction existed, the plaintiffs' conduct and delay would make it unconscionable to grant relief.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' reliefs refused; order for release of retained funds to first defendant granted.

Orders

  • Order directing release of €75,000 retained by the second defendant, together with any interest, to the first defendant.
  • Refusal of all reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.