Introduction

Case: Khan & Anor v Crosmac Ltd & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 57

Court: High Court of Ireland

Date: January 22, 2025

This case revolves around Rebecka Khan and Kieran Tarbett (the plaintiffs) who purchased a newly constructed property at No. 28 Tarmon Harbour, Tarmonbarry, Co. Roscommon. The property, part of a larger development featuring houses and marina berths, suffered significant flooding due to the floor levels being constructed lower than permitted by planning authorities. The plaintiffs initiated legal proceedings against multiple defendants, including Crosmac Limited (the main contractor), Michael McNamara Architectural Partnership (architects), Clifton Scannell Emerson Associates Limited (engineers), and Kilroe Developments Limited (builder).

The central issue in this judgment pertains to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain their updated particulars of loss filed in August 2023 without necessitating an amendment to their initial statement of claim. The defendants contested the updated particulars, arguing they introduced new claims not previously pleaded.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Micheál O'Higgins addressed two primary issues in this judgment:

1. Whether the plaintiffs correctly asserted that their existing statement of claim sufficiently includes the disputed matters identified by the defendants, negating the need for an amendment.
2. Whether the plaintiffs should be granted liberty to amend their statement of claim under Order 28 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts if their primary request was denied.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ existing pleadings adequately encompassed the disputed issues, specifically the claim that the plaintiffs would not have purchased the property had they been informed about the incorrect floor levels. Consequently, the court allowed the plaintiffs to maintain their updated particulars of loss without necessitating an amendment to their statement of claim.

Additionally, although the court did not need to address the amendment issue directly, it expressed a willingness to permit amendments if necessary, emphasizing the liberal approach under Order 28 Rule 1 and the overarching principle of justice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases to bolster its reasoning:

• Reddy v. Hyper Trust Limited [2023] IEHC 278: This case was pivotal in determining whether particular heads of loss had been adequately pleaded within existing pleadings. The High Court in Khan echoed the sentiments of Mulcahy J. from the Reddy case, emphasizing that as long as the core issues are identifiable within the pleadings, updated particulars can be maintained.
• A.S.I. Sugar Limited v. Greencore Group Plc [2003] IEHC 131: Cited for defining the function of pleadings as delineating the issues of fact and law between parties, ensuring fair notice and enabling preparation for trial.
• Stafford v. Rice [2022] IECA 47: Utilized to underscore the broad discretion courts possess in allowing amendments to pleadings, reinforcing the principle that amendments facilitating the determination of real questions in controversy should be favored.
• Croke v Waterford Crystal Ltd [2004] IESC 97: Referenced to highlight the liberal intent behind Order 28 Rule 1, supporting the court’s inclination towards allowing amendments if they serve justice.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously examined whether the plaintiffs' updated particulars introduced new causes of action or merely elaborated on existing claims. By analyzing specific paragraphs from the plaintiffs' statement of claim and their replies to particulars, the judge determined that the essence of the plaintiffs' updated losses was already within the original pleadings.

Justice O'Higgins stressed that the plaintiffs did not seek to introduce new causes of action but rather detailed the losses arising from the initially pleaded facts. The reliance on certificates by the plaintiffs was evident from the original statement of claim, thereby providing fair notice to the defendants.

Regarding the alternative relief of amending the statement of claim, the judge referred to the principles outlined in Stafford v. Rice and other precedents, affirming that the court should adopt a liberal stance in permitting amendments that aim to resolve real controversies between the parties, provided that any potential prejudice to the defendants can be mitigated.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the High Court’s approach towards flexibility in pleadings, particularly regarding updated particulars of loss. It underscores that as long as the core issues are identifiable within existing pleadings, plaintiffs can elaborate or detail their claims without necessitating formal amendments. This fosters a more fluid litigation process, allowing claims to be substantiated as cases evolve without rigid constraints on initial pleadings.

Furthermore, by emphasizing the liberal interpretation of Order 28 Rule 1, the court sets a precedent that encourages plaintiffs to update their claims as new evidence emerges, promoting justice and fairness over procedural technicalities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Updated Particulars of Loss

These are detailed statements provided by the plaintiff outlining the specific losses or damages they are claiming. They serve to clarify and specify the exact nature and extent of the losses related to the case.

No Transaction Claim

A legal claim where the plaintiff asserts that a transaction should be treated as null and void, typically due to some form of misrepresentation or breach, meaning the transaction never effectively occurred.

Order 28 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts

A judicial rule that allows parties in a lawsuit to amend their pleadings. It is designed to ensure that the litigation process is fair and that parties can adjust their claims or defenses as the case develops.

Pleadings

Formal written statements submitted by the parties in a lawsuit outlining their claims and defenses. Pleadings define the scope of the issues to be resolved in the trial.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Khan & Anor v Crosmac Ltd & Ors [2025] IEHC 57 marks a significant affirmation of the court's willingness to allow plaintiffs to substantiate their claims through updated particulars of loss without necessitating amendments to their initial pleadings, provided that the core issues are already outlined. This judgment highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice and equity by prioritizing the substantive claims over procedural rigidity.

Legal practitioners can draw from this case the understanding that detailed and evolving claims can be accommodated within the litigation process, promoting a more dynamic and responsive legal system. Additionally, the emphasis on fair notice and the liberal approach to amending pleadings under Order 28 Rule 1 sets a constructive precedent for future cases where plaintiffs seek to elaborate on their claims.

Overall, this ruling enhances the flexibility within the pleading process, ensuring that plaintiffs are not unduly hindered in presenting comprehensive claims, while still safeguarding defendants' rights to prepare their defenses adequately.