The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a homeowner whose negligence claim against solicitors over a property’s planning status was found to be statute barred. It held that the alleged loss arose when the property was conveyed to him in July 2006, more than six years before proceedings began in May 2014.
The case concerned a house in Gubadorish, Drumlish, County Leitrim, bought by the appellant and his wife for €240,000. The appellant alleged that the solicitors who acted in the purchase failed to carry out planning searches and ensure he received good marketable title. The house did not comply with its planning permission.
When the couple agreed to sell the property in 2008, the local authority advised that a condition of the planning permission had not been met and considered the development unauthorised. The intended purchasers did not complete the sale, and the couple returned their deposit. Retention permission was granted in November 2008.
The appellant argued that damage occurred only when the planned sale was rescinded in October 2008, so his 2014 action was within the six-year limitation period. The solicitors maintained they were entitled to rely on a compliance certificate from the vendors’ engineer and on replies from the vendors’ solicitors.
The High Court had accepted the appellant’s timing argument after a preliminary trial of the limitation issue. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, holding that the planning defect had already caused an immediate and significant blot on title when the property was bought. The Supreme Court considered the appeal from that ruling; it did not determine the underlying negligence claim at a full trial.
In a judgment delivered by Brian Murray J., the Supreme Court said that pure economic loss claims require a pragmatic, fact-sensitive assessment of when a real and meaningfully measurable loss occurred. A future risk or a purely contingent loss is not, by itself, enough. But the court found that the property was worth less than the asset the buyers had contracted for from the point of conveyance. The planning issues were not shown to be minor or certain to be remedied, and regularisation depended on a third party and could involve measurable costs.
The court concluded that the claim against the solicitors accrued in July 2006 and was statute barred. It dismissed the appeal. Its decision resolved the preliminary limitation issue; it did not make a final determination of the solicitors’ alleged negligence.