The Court of Appeal has ordered a fresh High Court hearing on Templeville Developments Limited’s claim that a map attached to a 2011 settlement agreement misrepresented the position of an underground electricity cable at Leopardstown racecourse.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s rejection of Templeville’s claim to rescind the agreement, or seek damages, because the map showed one ESB cable but omitted a second cable crossing a site intended for tennis courts and a sports dome. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, but did not decide whether the map amounted to an actionable misrepresentation.
The dispute arose from a mediated settlement between Leopardstown Club Limited, Templeville and its director Philip Smyth. The agreement provided for two sites, including an undeveloped site intended for tennis courts and five-a-side football beneath a proposed dome. The appeal judgment said the crossing cable meant that seven indoor courts could not be built there as planned. The map showed a different cable skirting the site.
Templeville’s misrepresentation claim was added to its defence and counterclaim on the second day of the 2013 High Court trial. The High Court found against the defendants on the claim, concluding that Templeville had knowledge of the crossing cable when it entered the agreement. It later granted relief against forfeiture. The appeal was confined to the rejection of the misrepresentation claim.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court had not made findings on whether the map represented a material fact, whether that representation was false, or whether it induced Templeville to sign. It also found that the High Court had not applied the required test when assessing knowledge: Leopardstown had to establish that Templeville had actual and complete knowledge of the cable. Possible constructive knowledge, including from manhole covers at the site, would not be enough.
The appeal court concluded that the High Court’s findings on Templeville’s knowledge could not be sustained. It therefore sent the question of actionable misrepresentation back for a fresh hearing. It stressed that this was not a finding that Leopardstown could not prove Templeville had actual and complete knowledge at that hearing. Templeville would still have to prove that the map represented a material fact, that it was materially false, and that it induced the settlement. Leopardstown could defend the claim by proving Templeville had actual and complete knowledge of the cable.
The Court of Appeal also found that no adverse inference should be drawn from Templeville’s failure to call architect Brendan O’Sullivan as a witness, because a prima facie case of Templeville’s full knowledge had not been established.