THE HIGH Court has awarded damages of €22,518 to a company involving developer Seán 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.
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.
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 Seán Dunne going back to the 1990s and claimed he had a vendetta against her.
It was alleged Hollybrook 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.
Other proceedings between Ms Farrell and Mr Dunne, involving her claim that he “hacked” into her mobile phone, remain in place. Mr Dunne denies that claim.
In her 60-page judgment yesterday, Ms Justice Laffoy found Ms Farrell was contractually obliged to have two cleaners at Hollybrook daily but did not always comply with that obligation and was in breach of contract. It was 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 complex, 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.
“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 said.
The judge also said it was her view Mr Dunne was the instigator, prime mover and funder of the action. 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 adjourned the costs issue for two weeks.
