Judgment: 2020-10-30 · Court archive

High Court strikes out land dispute over alleged purchase option

The court found no concluded contract to support specific performance, struck out the proceedings and directed that the lis pendens be removed.

High Court · [2020] IEHC 604

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Daniel McAteer
  • Aine McAteer (Plaintiff)
What

The court found no concluded contract to support specific performance, struck out the proceedings and directed that the lis pendens be removed.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by Daniel McAteer and Aine McAteer over an alleged option to buy land, finding that the documents and pleadings did not establish a concluded contract. It also directed that a lis pendens registered against the land be removed.

The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by Daniel McAteer and Aine McAteer over an alleged option to buy land, finding that the documents and pleadings did not establish a concluded contract. It also directed that a lis pendens registered against the land be removed.

In a judgment delivered on 30 October 2020, Ms Justice Pilkington granted the defendants’ application under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court also struck out the defamation claim, finding that it fell below even a stateable cause of action. The judge said she would hear the parties on any further orders, including costs.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of what they described as an option to acquire property and associated lands, as well as damages for breach of contract and defamation. Their statement of claim said £20,000 had been paid in good faith for an option, with further payments and a possible purchase to follow. The defendants denied that any enforceable agreement had been concluded.

The judge said the pleadings, the sale contract and other documents showed negotiations but no agreement with clear, settled terms. Solicitors for both sides had used “subject to contract / contract denied” language in their correspondence. The judge also noted that the plaintiffs’ claim about the terms of an alleged agreement differed significantly from their pleaded case and that no application had been made to amend it.

The court recorded that the defendants had confirmed the £20,000 deposit would be returned. The judgment noted that the money had been paid by a company associated with the purchaser and remained with the vendors; no other sums specified in the draft contract had been paid.

On the lis pendens, the judge found that delay in prosecuting the case did not justify removal. However, because the proceedings were struck out, she directed removal under section 123(b) of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. The order did not determine costs, which were left for further consideration.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review