Headford-based interior designer loses disputed limited liability case

AN electrical contractor who carried out work for a Headford-based interior designer successful sued her for payment for the work at the October sitting of Tuam Civil Court. The interior designer did not dispute the sum owed or that the work had been carried out. However, her solicitor argued, the contractor should be suing her limited company, not her personally. The case hinged on whether Judge Geoffrey Browne accepted this argument and that the contractor should have known he was dealing with a limited liability company. In the end, he did not and ordered the defendant to pay the sum claimed.[private] Electrical contractor Colm Burke told the Court that he first came in contact with interior designer Grainne O'Neill when they were both involved in a McEvaddy project in Galway. He carried out some work for her but insisted he understood that he was dealing with her personally, and not with a limited liability company. He carried out work for her in the 2006-7 period and she still owed him €4,700 and he was taking the case to get her to honour this debt. O'Neill's solicitor insisted her company, Architectural Solutions, was a limited company and thus it was the company which owed the money, not her personally. Personal contact Colm Burke said the sum related to work he carried out on her office in Nun's Island, Galway and later when she moved her office to her home in Headford. He said he at all times had contact with Grainne O'Neill personally. Solicitors for both parties argued the case back and forward. Burke's solicitor said that it was not made clear on documentation issued by Architectural Solutions that it was a limited company. O'Neill's solicitor produced a company cheque book with Ltd on the cover. However, the cheques themselves did not have Ltd on them and any cheque issued to Burke would not have indicated that he was dealing with a limited company. Judge Browne was told O'Neill converted a bar on her property to use as an office for her business and it was this project Burke worked on. O'Neill said work on her home would have been carried out under her name, work on her office would have been under her company's name. Burke's solicitor pointed out that Architectural Solutions had a website and he had found no reference to it being a limited company when he checked it. 'There is not a shred of evidence on your website that would indicate that you operate a limited liability company. In fact it is quite a serious offence not to make this matter clear,' he put to her. 'I'll rectify that this afternoon,' she assured him. Judge Browne asked if she had at any time told Burke that he should have invoiced a limited company. He added that Burke was not a lawyer and couldn't be expected to scan documentation such as cheques to find out who he was dealing with. He said he was satisfied that Burke carried out the work for O'Neill, not a company, and made an order for her to pay him the €4,730 owed, and his costs. [/private]