The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Ridley Properties Limited over damages awarded after it failed to complete a sale of land near Edgesworthtown, County Longford. The court affirmed the High Court order, subject to deductions for stamp duty and interest that the purchaser would have incurred if the sale had completed.
The dispute concerned a May 2003 agreement for Donal Duffy to buy about 2.05 acres from Ridley for €520,000. The parties disagreed over the site’s western boundary and the area to be transferred. Duffy also said a boundary wall required by the contract had not been built to the agreed specification. The High Court found the completion notice served by Ridley in September 2003 invalid because Ridley was not ready, willing and able to complete.
The High Court refused to order specific performance, finding the land could not be identified with sufficient certainty on the ground and the contract contained no mechanism for settling the boundary. It instead awarded damages for loss of bargain. After hearing valuation evidence, the judge valued the land at €1.4 million as of 7 July 2005 and calculated damages of €880,000, the difference from the contract price.
Ridley argued on appeal that uncertainty over the land meant there was no binding contract and that damages could not be awarded in place of specific performance. It also challenged the later valuation evidence, the date used to assess damages and the valuation method. Duffy sought to vary the decision and obtain specific performance.
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge was entitled to treat the agreement as subsisting. Ridley had not pleaded that the contract was uncertain, and the trial judge was entitled to refuse to allow that argument to be raised at the end of the evidence. The court said the purchaser was entitled to an accurate map or a clear delineation of the land before being required to complete. It also upheld the decision to hear further evidence on damages after the liability ruling.
The court found no material delay by Duffy and upheld the use of the High Court judgment date to value the land. It dismissed Ridley’s appeal and affirmed the High Court order, with adjustments: Ridley is to receive credit for the stamp duty Duffy would have paid on completion and for interest at the Courts Act rate on the €468,000 balance from 21 May 2003 to 7 July 2005. The source judgment does not state the resulting net damages figure. The judgment addressed Ridley’s appeal; the source does not record a separate final order on Duffy’s notice to vary.