The Supreme Court has overturned an order requiring Robin Boyd to complete the sale of a house and lands at Killuragh Glen, near Mallow, after finding that buyers Declan O’Dwyer and Julia Jones-O’Dwyer repudiated a settlement agreement by pursuing reserved legal costs.
In a judgment delivered on 4 March 2008, the court allowed Mr Boyd’s appeal against a High Court order for specific performance of the August 2004 settlement. It held that the parties were no longer bound by a contract for the sale. The court also dismissed the O’Dwyers’ notice to vary and their separate appeal against the dismissal of their action against Andrew Dillon, Mr Boyd’s solicitor.
The dispute centred on whether the settlement included an agreement that each side would bear its own reserved costs, while existing costs orders would stand. The O’Dwyers said costs had not been agreed. The High Court, after hearing conflicting oral evidence, found that they had agreed to forego reserved costs. The Supreme Court said that finding was supported by credible evidence and upheld it.
After the settlement, the O’Dwyers obtained a High Court order lifting the reservation on costs from a 1999 order. Mr Boyd’s solicitors warned that insisting on those costs would be treated as repudiating the settlement. The Supreme Court found that the O’Dwyers persisted and that the defendants had accepted the repudiation, at the latest in their defence. It also said specific performance would be inappropriate because the O’Dwyers continued to deny the settlement terms found by the courts.
The High Court had ordered €41,170 in compensation for damage to the property and €500 for consequential loss, as well as specific performance. Those orders fell with the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse specific performance. The judgment stated that there was consequently no sale contract between the parties. It did not require completion of the sale.
The court upheld the dismissal of the O’Dwyers’ defamation claim concerning a letter Dillon sent to gardaí about marble fireplace pieces taken from the property. The High Court had found the claim was not properly pleaded and that the letter was not capable of being defamatory. The Supreme Court saw no basis to interfere, while describing the letter’s tone as intemperate and possibly unprofessional.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision that Dillon, acting as Mr Boyd’s agent under a power of attorney, was not personally liable for the alleged defaults. It dismissed the O’Dwyers’ appeals and allowed Mr Boyd’s appeal.