The High Court ordered specific performance of a 2009 settlement in a dispute over the construction and sale of a house at No. 6 Glenair Manor, Delgany, Co Wicklow. It was not satisfied that the defendants had breached the settlement.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Roderick Murphy on 6 March 2013, concerned Joseph and Katherine Corcoran’s application to enforce the settlement. The original proceedings included claims over the house contract, construction delays and a disputed boundary. Those claims were compromised by the settlement, the court said.
Under the settlement, the parties agreed to appoint an independent architect to assess completion. The sale price was reduced to €400,000, with €350,000 remaining after a €50,000 deposit. The building contract price was set at €1.09 million, with €955,000, including VAT, remaining after a €135,000 deposit. The balance was payable after an architect certified that the works, including snagging and defects, were complete to the architect’s satisfaction, with closing due 28 days later.
Architect Denis Handy inspected the property in May 2012 and issued a completion certificate. He reported that the specified snagging work had been completed and that, in his opinion, the house had reached practical completion. His certificate was limited to a visual inspection of specified works. It did not assess the building’s structure or certify compliance with planning or building regulations.
Joseph Corcoran disputed that the certificate could bind the parties, saying the architect’s remit had been changed and that works remained incomplete. He sought specific performance on revised financial terms, including deductions for finishing work and legal costs. Alistair Jackson said the house was ready and argued that Mr Corcoran had delayed completion by failing to supply agreed materials and by contacting the architect directly.
The court held that the architect had been appointed under the settlement to certify completion of the identified snagging items. It found that the parties’ communications with him were to be handled through their solicitors, and that Mr Corcoran’s direct letter to the architect was inappropriate. The court excluded that letter and further correspondence and snag lists from consideration.
Relying on the architect’s certificate, the court concluded that practical completion had been achieved and that the settlement had determined the issues between the parties. It also found that Mr Corcoran had breached the settlement by disclosing its terms and contacting the architect, and that his obligations concerning fittings, inspection and proof of loan approval had further delayed implementation. The order was for specific performance of the settlement; the court did not grant the additional financial terms Mr Corcoran sought.