The High Court found that the sellers of a Dublin shoe retailer breached their contract by failing to provide an architect’s certificate of compliance for No. 25 Grafton Street, including compliance with fire-safety rules. The court did not determine what works were needed to remedy the breach or award damages in this judgment.
The dispute followed the 2005 sale of the shares in Carl Scarpa (Grafton Street) Limited to Stephen Moffitt Limited. The shop premises had been separated from adjoining No. 24 after the two units were connected in earlier works. A €50,000 sum was placed on joint deposit under an undertaking that an architect’s compliance certificate would be furnished.
Justice Laffoy found that the sellers’ contractual obligations arose from specific warranties in a disclosure letter and the undertaking, rather than the broader warranties alleged by the buyers. The court found that the premises were compliant with planning requirements as of 8 August 2005, and that a planning compliance certificate could have been provided. It suggested the sellers obtain and provide that certificate to narrow the remaining dispute.
The fire-safety position was different. The court found that after the separation of the units, No. 25 did not comply with Part B of the Building Regulations and required a fire safety certificate. The sellers had not obtained one and could not provide the promised building-regulations certificate without remedial works and the required approval. The court found a continuing breach of the regulations and breach of contract.
The parties’ fire-safety experts disagreed about how compliance could be achieved. The buyers’ expert supported a new staircase near the front of the premises. The sellers’ experts proposed enclosing the existing rear staircase, with additional compensating measures. No application based on that refined proposal had been prepared or submitted, and the court said it could not determine whether it would secure a fire safety certificate. Two applications submitted by the buyers to Dublin Fire Brigade had not been decided by the start of the liability hearing.
The buyers had also alleged deceit and negligent misstatement. The court found that the seller’s representative had acted honestly and that the buyers had not proved he knowingly or recklessly made a false representation. It found no liability in tort.
The judgment addressed liability only. Damages, any failure to mitigate loss, and the defendants’ estoppel defence remained for later consideration. The court said damages were not limited to the €50,000 held on deposit and suggested the parties seek a workable fire-safety solution that would limit the impact on the shop’s commercial viability. Further submissions were to follow.