Corcoran v Eassda Group Ltd & Ors, Fennell v Corcoran & Anor, Cororan & Anor v Promontoria & Anor [No.3] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 361 (12 June 2025)

Corcoran v Eassda Group Ltd & Ors, Fennell v Corcoran & Anor, Cororan & Anor v Promontoria & Anor [No.3] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 361 (12 June 2025)

The deposits issue cannot be treated as an addendum to the original actions due to its absence from the pleadings, the concluded trial, and the scope of required evidence and discovery; jurisdictional limits prevent the court from deciding unpleaded matters.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 361
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Corcoran; Defendant: Eassda Group Limited; Defendant: Eassda Ireland Limited; Defendant: Alastair Jackson; Notice Party: Promontoria Eagle Limited; Notice Party: Ken Fennell; Plaintiff: Ken Fennell; Defendant: Joseph Corcoran; Defendant: Katherine Corcoran; Plaintiff: Katherine Corcoran; Defendant: Promontoria Eagle Limited; Defendant: Ken Fennell
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment, Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Court declines to decide the deposits issue within current proceedings.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Discovery, Trial Management, Receiver Appointment
Civil Procedure Pleadings Joinder of Parties Discovery Trial Management Receiver Appointment

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Corcoran

Plaintiff

Eassda Group Limited

Defendant

Eassda Ireland Limited

Defendant

Alastair Jackson

Defendant

Promontoria Eagle Limited

Notice Party

Ken Fennell

Notice Party

Ken Fennell

Plaintiff

Joseph Corcoran

Defendant

Katherine Corcoran

Defendant

Katherine Corcoran

Plaintiff

Promontoria Eagle Limited

Defendant

Ken Fennell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment, Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deposits issue can be decided as an addendum to existing proceedings
  2. 2 Whether further evidence, discovery, or joinder of parties is required to resolve the deposits issue
  3. 3 Jurisdictional limits of the trial judge based on pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The deposits issue cannot be treated as an addendum to the original actions due to its absence from the pleadings, the concluded trial, and the scope of required evidence and discovery; jurisdictional limits prevent the court from deciding unpleaded matters.

Court Disposition

Court declines to decide the deposits issue within current proceedings.

Orders

  • Order in plenary actions not to be perfected before 30 June 2025.
  • Order in application to appoint receiver to 6 Glenair Manor not to be perfected before 30 June 2025.