Kelly v Fennell & Ors; Havbell Designated Activity Company v Kelly (Approved), High Court of Ireland, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Kelly v Fennell & Ors; Havbell Designated Activity Company v. Kelly (Approved)

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns two related actions between Plaintiff and Company A arising from loans advanced by The Bank in 1999 and secured over Residence A and Commercial Unit A. [Para 21][Para 24][Para 29] Plaintiff stopped making repayments in 2002, and The Bank did not issue proceedings or otherwise enforce the securities between 2002 and 2014; it then assigned the loans and securities to Company A in 2015. [Para 30][Para 32] Company A later demanded repayment, appointed a receiver over Commercial Unit A in 2018, and commenced possession proceedings in respect of Residence A in 2018, while Plaintiff brought plenary proceedings in 2020 challenging the receiver’s authority and the sale of Commercial Unit A. [Para 48][Para 49][Para 51][Para 54] The High Court heard a preliminary issue in June 2026 on whether Company A’s enforcement was statute-barred under the Statute of Limitations 1957. [Para 36][Para 60]

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Company A’s right to recover the debt and enforce the mortgages was extinguished after 12 years under ss. 33 and 36(1)(a) of the Statute of Limitations 1957. [Para 36][Para 104][Para 116][Para 122]
Whether the open correspondence relied upon by Company A constituted valid acknowledgements of the debt and mortgagee’s title, so as to restart time under ss. 52, 56 and 58. [Para 64][Para 125][Para 128][Para 158][Para 164]
Whether the without prejudice correspondence could be used as an acknowledgement for limitation purposes, or only for the narrower issue of whether a concluded settlement agreement existed. [Para 110][Para 111][Para 178][Para 194][Para 216][Para 223]

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the debt and mortgagee’s title were extinguished in 2014, 12 years after default began in 2002, so Company A had no enforceable right by the time it appointed the receiver or issued possession proceedings in 2018. [Para 104][Para 106]
Plaintiff denied that any correspondence amounted to a sufficient acknowledgement to restart the limitation period. [Para 108]
In the plenary proceedings, Plaintiff also pleaded that Company A had agreed to accept €1m in full and final settlement and had wrongfully reneged on that agreement, which was relevant to the dispute over privilege. [Para 28][Para 57][Para 110]

Defendants' Arguments

Company A argued that several letters and emails, including open correspondence within the original limitation period, acknowledged both the debt and the mortgagee’s title, thereby resetting time under the Act. [Para 64][Para 65][Para 73][Para 74]
It also relied on without prejudice correspondence, contending that Plaintiff had waived privilege by pleading a concluded €1m settlement agreement. [Para 109][Para 110][Para 111]
On that basis, Company A contended that neither the 2018 receiver appointment nor the 2018 possession proceedings were out of time. [Para 113][Para 114]

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC v Walsh [2025] IESC 45	Extinguishment under s.33 is not automatic in the abstract; it must be raised as a defence and depends on the limitation bar being established.	The court used this authority to reject Plaintiff’s argument that the mortgagee’s title had automatically vanished in 2014. [Para 133][Para 136][Para 137][Para 138]
AIB v Costello [2019] IEHC 286	No particular form of words is required for an acknowledgement if the debt is clearly admitted.	The court cited it when explaining that the open letters could amount to acknowledgements even though they did not use technical formulae. [Para 145][Para 146]
Read v Price [1909] 2 KB 724	An acknowledgement need not state the exact amount if the debt is otherwise clearly admitted.	Used with other authorities to support a broad approach to what counts as a sufficient acknowledgement. [Para 147][Para 149]
Jones v Bellgrove Properties [1949] 2 KB 700	A balance-sheet reference can amount to an acknowledgement where extrinsic evidence identifies the debt.	Relied on for the proposition that the content of the debt need not be fully particularised in the acknowledgement itself. [Para 147][Para 149]
Dungate v Dungate [1965] 1 WLR 1477	A general indebtedness can suffice, and the amount may be proved extrinsically.	Supported the court’s view that the relevant letters need only clearly recognise an existing indebtedness. [Para 150][Para 151]
Edgington v Clark [1964] 1 QB 367	An offer to purchase land can amount to an acknowledgement of title.	Part of the line of authority used to assess whether the correspondence acknowledged the mortgagee’s title. [Para 153][Para 154]
Ofulue v Bossert [2009] 1 AC 990	An offer to purchase made in without prejudice settlement negotiations is protected and cannot be used as an acknowledgement for limitation purposes.	The court relied on this case when holding that without prejudice settlement communications could not be used as acknowledgements under the Act. [Para 195][Para 204][Para 205][Para 222]
Allen v Matthews [2007] EWCA Civ 216	An acknowledgement of title must be made by or on behalf of the person in possession.	Cited as part of the legal framework on acknowledgements of title to land. [Para 154]
Dublin Corporation Lessee v Judge [1847] 11 IR Law Rep 8	An offer to take a lease is ordinarily an acknowledgement of title unless it is really a compromise offer.	Used to illustrate the distinction between acknowledging title and merely negotiating settlement. [Para 155]
Hannigan v DPP [2001] 1 IR 378	Privilege may be waived where privileged material is deployed for litigious advantage.	Used in the discussion of waiver, but the court treated the without prejudice issue as governed by the separate public-policy rule. [Para 174][Para 176]
Fyffes plc v DCC plc & Ors. [2009] 2 IR 417	Deployment of a privileged document in litigation can waive privilege in that material.	Referred to as an example of waiver by deployment. [Para 177]
Elsharkawy v Minister for Transport [2024] IECA 258	Privilege is waived where privileged material is deployed for a litigious advantage on an issue in the proceedings.	Cited in the court’s analysis of whether Plaintiff’s pleading could amount to waiver of privilege. [Para 178]
Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290	Without prejudice privilege is grounded in public policy encouraging settlement.	The court quoted it when explaining why settlement communications should not be used to the prejudice of the negotiating party. [Para 180][Para 181]
Ryan v Connolly [2001] 1 IR 627	Without prejudice communications should generally not later be used against a party, because that would inhibit settlement talks.	Cited for the Irish statement of the policy behind the without prejudice rule and the narrow circumstances in which it may be examined. [Para 182][Para 188]
Purcell v Central Bank of Ireland [2016] IECA 50	Without prejudice privilege has a strong public-interest basis and is not to be displaced save in exceptional circumstances.	Used to reinforce the court’s conclusion that frank settlement negotiations should remain protected. [Para 183][Para 186]
Savings & Investment Bank Ltd v Finken [2003] EWCA Civ. 1630	Admitting settlement communications can turn negotiation into a trap and undermine candour.	Adopted through Purcell as part of the policy argument against admitting without prejudice material as acknowledgements. [Para 184][Para 186]
Briggs v Clay [2019] EWHC 102	Without prejudice material is not admitted merely because a party wants to prove some collateral fact; the privilege remains strong.	The court referred to it when rejecting a broad approach to disclosing without prejudice correspondence. [Para 190][Para 205]
Moorview Developments v First Active PLC [2009] 2 IR 788	Without prejudice evidence is only admissible where exclusion would do greater damage to justice than disclosure.	Used to support the court’s emphasis on the exceptional nature of any departure from without prejudice privilege. [Para 191][Para 193]
Jones v Foxall [1850] 51 ER 588	Compromise offers should not be converted into admissions of liability.	Cited through Ofulue as part of the policy rationale for excluding settlement communications from evidence. [Para 196][Para 197]
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280	Without prejudice privilege protects settlement negotiations and encourages compromise.	Referred to as one of the leading authorities confirming the scope of the rule. [Para 199]
Unilever plc v Proctor & Gamble Company [2000] WLR 2436	The rule protects admissions made in settlement talks and should not be dissected without special reason.	The court relied on it, via Ofulue, to explain why candid negotiation would be undermined if admissions were later used as evidence. [Para 199][Para 200][Para 201]
Scott Paper Company v Drayton Paper Works Limited [1927] 44 RPC 151	Parties should be encouraged to “put their cards on the table” in settlement discussions.	Quoted in the policy discussion supporting robust without prejudice protection. [Para 181]

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first rejected the premise that s.33 of the Statute of Limitations 1957 automatically extinguished the mortgagee’s title on the expiry of 12 years; instead, it relied on Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC v Walsh to explain that extinguishment is tied to the statutory defence and the mortgagor’s ability to invoke limitation. [Para 132][Para 133][Para 136][Para 137]

It then held that the open letter of 18 December 2006 was a valid acknowledgement because it referred to the mortgages, described the Bank’s strengthened security, and set out repayment undertakings linked to the secured properties; as it was not connected with litigation, it was admissible and restarted limitation until 18 December 2018. [Para 158][Para 159][Para 160][Para 161]

The court reached the same conclusion about the open letter of 24 April 2008, which again recognised the existing loans and proposed further undertakings to discharge arrears after sale of Commercial Unit A; this restarted the 12-year period from 24 April 2008. [Para 162][Para 164]

Because those acknowledgements restarted time, Company A’s 2018 receiver appointment and possession proceedings were not out of time. [Para 166][Para 167]

On the without prejudice correspondence, the court emphasised the public policy protecting frank settlement negotiations and held that an acknowledgement made in that context is not an acknowledgement for Statute of Limitations purposes, even if the communications might be admissible on the separate issue of whether a concluded settlement agreement existed. [Para 180][Para 182][Para 186][Para 187][Para 193][Para 194][Para 205][Para 211][Para 216]

Holding and Implications

The preliminary issue was decided in favour of Company A: the court held that Company A’s right of action and mortgagee title were not extinguished before the 2018 receiver appointment or the 2018 possession proceedings, and that those proceedings were not statute-barred. [Para 227]

The court proposed that Company A and the other defendants should receive their costs of the preliminary issue, subject to final submissions and a later order. [Para 228][Para 229][Para 230][Para 231] The immediate effect was limited to the parties, and no broader implication beyond the application of existing limitation and privilege principles was identified. [Para 227][Para 228][Para 229]