The High Court has refused to order specific performance of a settlement requiring a lease of The Pod nightclub premises on Harcourt Street, Dublin, and has ruled that the settlement should be rescinded. The court found that the defendants breached the settlement and the related court order by failing to complete the lease by 26 March 2014 and seeking additional conditions before signing.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cregan on 30 June 2015, concerns a 5 March 2014 consent order made in earlier proceedings. Under its terms, the parties were to execute a lease by 26 March. The defendants were to pay a €185,000 balance on execution, while the plaintiff, John Reynolds, had agreed to withdraw a planning appeal and pay that sum when the lease was executed.
The dispute followed the defendants’ failure to complete on the agreed date. The court found that the defendants sought to postpone completion and later raised issues including the shared sky walk and rear stairs, water damage to the premises, and the scope of a guarantee. The judge concluded these were new conditions that had not formed part of the March settlement. The defendants had agreed to take the premises in the condition they were in at the time of settlement, despite later obtaining an estimate of about €750,000 for repairs.
The judgment also examined the timing and conditions attached to funds intended for the deposit, and the delay in obtaining all defendants’ signatures. The court found the defendants were not ready, willing and able to complete by 26 March. It described their post-settlement conduct as bad faith and an abuse of the court order. It rejected the defendants’ request for specific performance.
Reynolds had initially sought specific performance but later pursued rescission and damages. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that his conduct prevented equitable relief. It ruled that the defendants had significantly breached the agreement and were in breach of the court order, and that Reynolds was entitled to rescission and damages for breach of contract. The judgment did not quantify damages or set out the final form of the order; the judge said he would hear the parties on those matters.