Loonam -v- Kenny [2015] IEHC 545 (14 July 2015)

Loonam -v- Kenny [2015] IEHC 545 (14 July 2015)

The plaintiff was induced to enter into the agreements by fraudulent misrepresentation and, for later payments, by undue influence exerted by the first defendant. Despite receiving legal advice and failing to conduct due diligence, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for misrepresentation and undue influence, subject to a deduction for contributory negligence assessed at 10%.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 545
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Loonam; First Defendant: William Kenny; Second Defendant: Karen Kenny; Third Defendant: K&K Plant and Haulage Limited; Fourth Defendant: Kenny Tyres Limited; Fifth Defendant: Topgear Car and Truck Wash Limited; Sixth Defendant: Tribal Catering Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial and Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in part; damages awarded subject to contributory negligence; no order against the second defendant.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Damages, Contributory Negligence, Rescission
Contract Law Tort Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Undue Influence Damages Contributory Negligence Rescission

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Loonam

Plaintiff

William Kenny

First Defendant

Karen Kenny

Second Defendant

K&K Plant and Haulage Limited

Third Defendant

Kenny Tyres Limited

Fourth Defendant

Topgear Car and Truck Wash Limited

Fifth Defendant

Tribal Catering Limited

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial and Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was induced to enter into agreements by fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was subject to undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the agreements constituted an improvident transaction or unconscionable bargain

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was induced to enter into the agreements by fraudulent misrepresentation and, for later payments, by undue influence exerted by the first defendant. Despite receiving legal advice and failing to conduct due diligence, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for misrepresentation and undue influence, subject to a deduction for contributory negligence assessed at 10%.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in part; damages awarded subject to contributory negligence; no order against the second defendant.

Orders

  • Damages of €181,386 awarded to the plaintiff, jointly and severally against the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants.
  • No order against the second defendant.