The High Court found that a written contract for the sale of a home in Kilsallaghan, Co Dublin, was enforceable, rejecting the seller’s claims that it involved an illegal cash payment or that completing the sale would be impossible or cause exceptional hardship. The court did not make a final order for specific performance in this judgment. It said the parties would have an opportunity to make further submissions on the proposed order, and directed that the judgment and draft order be sent to the owners of the charge over the property so they could make representations if necessary.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor on 27 March 2019, concerned a claim by Brian Leggett against Gavin Crowley. The court found that the parties had entered into a contract dated 25 February 2014, after the agreed price had been reduced to €460,000. The plaintiff sought specific performance, which would require completion of the sale.
Crowley alleged that Leggett had agreed to pay an additional amount in cash, with a lower price recorded to the bank and Revenue. Leggett denied the allegation. The judge found no corroborating evidence and accepted Leggett’s account of how the price was negotiated. He concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that there was no agreement for an extra cash payment, so illegality did not defeat the contract.
Crowley also argued that the sale could not be completed because of a possible boundary dispute with a neighbour and uncertainty over whether the mortgage holder would release its security. The judgment records that the bank had written in February 2014 that it would accept €445,887.20 in net sale proceeds to release the security, subject to stated conditions. The court was not satisfied that the successor mortgage holder would withdraw that position. It said the proposed order would give the charge holder an opportunity to seek necessary orders or directions. The judge also found no evidence of a continuing boundary dispute and noted that Leggett accepted disclosure of the risk at closing.
On hardship, Crowley relied on the loss of his home, where he lived with his partner and father, and on his father’s financial contribution to its construction. The court said Crowley had entered the contract willingly while seeking to deal with the bank and had contemplated selling the home. It found that the exceptional circumstances required to refuse specific performance on hardship grounds were not established.
The judgment records that the contract set a closing date of 4 March 2014 and that the plaintiff’s proceedings seeking specific performance began in June 2014. The matter had been heard over several dates, with oral submissions on 6 March 2019. The court’s conclusions resolved the principal defences, but finalisation of the remedy remained outstanding.