A HIGH Court judge has said she hopes “common sense” will prevail in an action over alleged overcharging and double-charging for cleaning services in which a businesswoman has alleged she is being sued as part of a “vendetta” against her by developer Seán Dunne.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy made the comments yesterday in proceedings where Eugenia Pacelli, also known as Gina Farrell, trading as Gina Farrell Cleaning Services, is being sued for €120,000 by Hollybrook (Brighton Road) Management Company Ltd.
The remarks came after the judge was told the case, which entered its second day yesterday, could run for longer than its listed five days with up to 10 witnesses yet to be called.
The judge said the legal costs would be “totally disproportionate” to the amount involved in the claim and would amount to “many multitudes of €120,000”.
Describing the situation as “absolutely ludicrous” and “lacking sense”, the judge said she hoped “common sense” would prevail before the case resumed on Tuesday week.
Hollybrook has alleged Ms Farrell’s company was in breach of contract by reason of fraud for overcharging for the provision of cleaning services at an apartment complex managed by Hollybrook at Brighton Road, Foxrock, Co Dublin between 2003 and 2006.
Ms Farrell, of Dangan Park, Kimmage Road West, Dublin, denies all the claims against her and denies Hollybrook was overcharged by her firm.
She claims Hollybrook is under the control of businessman and developer Seán Dunne, and that the action has been brought against her “solely at the behest and instructions of Mr Dunne” due to a vendetta he has against her.
Yesterday, Thomas Martin, a director of Hollybrook, said a forensic examination had disclosed alterations were made to log books (maintained by another company providing services for Hollybrook) which recorded the daily comings and goings at the apartment complex. He said alterations and insertions were made so as to record that two cleaners arrived at the complex when this sometimes was not the case.
On two occasions when people from Hollybrook visited the apartment complex they had been unable to find cleaners from Ms Farrell’s company in the common areas of the complex when the cleaners should have been there, he said.
He had twice written to Ms Farrell to draw her attention to this and asked her company to provide a schedule for the cleaners.
When Ms Farrell’s company’s contract expired in February 2006, she did not win the new contract despite tendering for it, as a number of other companies were cheaper, the court heard. The case will resume in early July.