The High Court has refused a bid by Ray and Etna O’Keeffe to dissolve or vary an order concerning the proposed sale of the Beach Tavern in Irishtown, Dublin, to Conor Martin for €725,000.
In a judgment delivered on 20 January 2025, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill said the 2022 order confirmed that Martin had exercised an option to buy the property. It did not order either side to complete the sale or direct what should happen afterwards. The court therefore had no basis in this motion to vary or dissolve it using the principles that apply to orders for specific performance.
The dispute began with a 2015 tenancy agreement that included an option to purchase the property. In a 2021 judgment, the High Court found that Martin exercised the option by a solicitor’s letter in October 2016, at a price of €725,000. The judge refused his request for specific performance, which had concerned a claimed €625,000 contract. A 2022 order then declared that he had exercised the option for €725,000. That judgment was final and had not been appealed; Justice Cahill said it could not be reopened in this motion.
The O’Keeffes’ March 2024 motion said the sale had not completed and Martin had not paid the purchase price. Ray O’Keeffe said the couple owed Pepper Finance more than €1.18 million plus interest and needed to sell the property or their family home to reduce the debt. The defendants sought to be freed to sell the property to someone else.
Martin said the defendants had frustrated attempts to complete the purchase and proposed alternative arrangements, including deductions from the price for alleged costs and fire-safety work. Justice Cahill found no evidence that he had tried or intended to pay €725,000 under the option. She said the allegations about the property’s condition and alleged nondisclosure were outside the scope of the motion and could not be used to revisit the final 2021 findings.
The judge acknowledged the defendants’ concern about remaining bound while the sale remained incomplete. She said it would be unjust to require them to hold the property indefinitely, but that question was not addressed by the 2022 order or the pleadings in the case. She also observed, without deciding the point, that there appeared to be prima facie grounds to believe Martin had repudiated the contract.
The motion was refused. The judge’s provisional view was that there should be no order as to costs. The parties were given until 4 February 2025 to file short written submissions if they sought a different costs order, with an oral hearing listed for 17 February if needed.