The High Court awarded Courtyard Associates Limited €224,130 in damages after finding that the vendor’s side had not ensured a contract map accurately showed the land available for sale. The dispute concerned a three-quarter-acre portion of a site at Rosbrien, County Limerick, which had already been compulsorily acquired by Limerick County Council before the sale.
The written sale agreement, dated 29 January 1999, had a map showing about 28.34 acres, including the disputed portion. The defendant, Elsie McGee, represented the estate of the late George McGee. Her defence said the sale covered a slightly smaller area of about 27.5 acres.
The plaintiff said it believed the three-quarter-acre portion was included and was important to its development plans. The defendant argued that the plaintiff knew, or should have known, that the council had acquired the land. The court rejected that argument, finding that the plaintiff could not reasonably have been expected to know of the acquisition and had not in fact known about it. It accepted that the plaintiff discovered the position around October 1999, when its planning application for development including the disputed land was refused because the council owned it.
The judgment records the council acquisition as having taken place on 18 November 1998. In summarising the defendant’s argument, however, it gives the date as 18 November 1988. The source does not explain this discrepancy.
The court said the vendor was responsible for ensuring the map attached to the contract was accurate and corresponded substantially with the property described in the agreement. It found that responsibility had not been met and held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. It also said the late Mr McGee may genuinely have believed he was selling only the smaller area and that the plaintiff knew this, but found that this belief did not discharge the vendor’s obligation.
For the loss calculation, the court considered the disputed land’s importance as an access point from an existing roundabout and its position near a main road, rather than valuing it only by its area. It treated the plaintiff’s valuer’s €350,000 figure as potentially inflated, in part because of his refusal to engage with cross-examination, and substituted €200,000 in general damages. Adding €24,130 in agreed special damages, the court awarded a total of €224,130. The judgment gives no further order or procedural direction.