The High Court has awarded total damages of €22,518 to a company involving developer Séan Dunne after finding breach of contract by a woman who provided cleaning services for apartments.
A lot of what had happened in the 17-day case involved “a waste” of the High Court’s time and publicly-funded resources for which both sides bear responsibility, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy said. She believed Mr Dunne was the instigator, prime mover and funder of the case, the judge added.
Hollybrook (Brighton Road Management Company) Ltd, had sued All First Property Management Company Ltd (in liquidation) and Gina Farrell (aka Eugenia Pacelli), trading as Gina Farrell Cleaning Services arising from cleaning services provided for a complex of 48 luxury apartments at Hollybrook, Brighton Road, Foxrock, Dublin.
All First was a company of Ms Farrell’s who told the court she had had a business relationship with Séan Dunne going back to the 1990s and claimed he had a vendetta against her.
Among a series of complaints by Hollybrook, it was alleged the company was overcharged for cleaning services between 2003 and 2006 and that Ms Farrell falsified entries in log books to indicate two cleaners attended at the complex when, it was alleged, that was not the case.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy had from the outset urged both sides in the action, which dates back five years, to engage in mediation but the case continued and was ultimately heard over 17 days, incurring legal costs which could be as high as €1 million.
Other proceedings between Ms Farrell and Mr Dunne, involving her claim that he “hacked” into her mobile phone, remain in being. Mr Dunne denies that claim.
In her 60-page judgment today, Ms Justice Laffoy accepted evidence Ms Farrell was obliged to provide two cleaners everyday from Monday to Friday from 9am to 1pm.
The most compelling evidence in that regard was that Ms Farrell, when she became aware in January 2006 her conduct was being monitored, had removed concierge logs from Hollybrook and also altered the entries of the attendance of her cleaners at the apartment complex, the judge said.
Ms Farell was contractually obliged to have two cleaners at Hollybrook daily but did not always comply with that obligation and was therefore in breach of contract, she ruled.
It was very difficult to assess the loss suffered as a result of that breach as there was little complaint from the owners of the apartments about the cleaning of the common areas of the apartments, the judge said. Noting that payments to Ms Farrell over the period August 2003 to February 2006 amounted to €112,592, she ruled Hollybrook was entitled to damages in one fifth of that sum - €22,518.
Earlier, the judge observed, while she had invited the sides to enter mediation when the case came on for hearing last June, that mediation did not take place primarily due to Ms Farrell’s unwillingness to mediate at that stage.
“A lot of what ensued, in my view, involved a waste of the time and the resources of the High Court and the public monies which fund the High Court, for which both sides share responsibility.”
The judge also said it was her view Séan Dunne was the instigator, prime mover and funder of the action. While Mr Dunne, by reason of his family’s ownership of five apartments in Hollybrook, and his company Mountbrook’s ownership of four more apartments there, had a legitimate interest in this case, it was impossible to avoid the conclusion he had “an ulterior motive” in funding these very costly proceedings, the judge said.
Even if the case had been wholly successful, any award Hollybrook could hope to get was “totally disproportionate” to the 20 per cent interest held by Mr Dunne and Mountbrook in the plaintiff.
She noted Mountbrook had provided an indemnity for costs of the case incurred by Hollybrook. When the High Court ordered the company to provide security for the costs of the action, a cheque for €150,000, drawn on the account of Mrs Gayle Dunne, wife of Séan Dunne, was lodged on behalf of Mountbrook, the judge also noted.
Mountbrook was converted into and re-registered as an unlimited company since August 2009, before the date on the deed of indemnity, the judge also noted.
Mountbrook’s name was changed to Mavior since March 2011 and the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) had indicated to Ms Farrell it could not, for reasons of duties of confidentiality, say whether Mavior/Mountbrook was a debtor within the meaning of the Nama Act 2009 or whether the agency had acquired any loans of those companies, she added.