Galway District Court orders €180 refund for shelf installation abandoned over boxes

The District Court in a small claims setting in Galway ordered Darragh Lally to repay Orla Keane €180 for a shelf installation that never took place. It refused her additional claims for compensation and fees because she had not proved those losses.

The dispute turned on two different questions: whether Keane had prepared the work area as agreed, and whether an unsuccessful visit entitled Lally to keep her advance. The court found no basis for him to retain the money, without finding that he alone caused the installation to fail.

The WhatsApp booking exchange established that Lally would fit two shelves supplied by Keane for €180, paid ahead. It also established her agreement to have the wall and working area clear when he arrived. But it contained no cancellation, attendance or wasted-visit charge.

Both sides accepted that boxes were near the wall and that no installation work was done. What remained uncertain was how seriously the boxes obstructed the work, whether they made it unsafe or impracticable, and whether moving them could have resolved the problem promptly.

Keane said she offered to move the boxes before Lally left. The court treated that as an attributed account, not an independently confirmed record of the visit. It found no separate evidence resolving the timing and did not accept as proved that Lally left without giving her a chance to clear the area.

That uncertainty did not settle the financial question. The €180 was payment for fitting shelves, not simply attending. Lally had done no work, evidenced no expense and identified no agreed deduction. Although the preparation condition mattered, it did not establish forfeiture of the advance. With no evidence supporting a reasonable reduction, the court could not choose an arbitrary figure.

The same requirement for evidence limited Keane’s recovery: inconvenience and the uncompleted installation did not establish a separate compensable loss or a supported claim for fees.

Keane’s side argued that she had paid for installation, offered to remove the obstruction and received no work in return. She sought the advance back, together with compensation for the trouble of recovering it and fees.

Lally relied on the agreed requirement for a clear work area. He said the boxes meant the area was not ready and asked for repayment to be reduced. He nevertheless accepted that the messages did not authorize retention of the full payment or impose a wasted-visit fee, and that he had no evidence of expenses.

Keane paid the €180 before the booked visit. Lally arrived to find boxes near the wall and left for his next job without installing either shelf, retaining the payment.

The judgment separates an agreed preparation requirement from a right to keep money when work does not proceed. Its outcome rests on the terms and evidence in this record; responsibility for the failed visit remains unresolved.