The Supreme Court has allowed Leopardstown Club Limited’s appeal in its dispute with Templeville Developments Limited and Philip Smyth, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s judgments and order and affirming the High Court’s judgment and order.
The dispute arose from a 2011 mediated settlement agreement concerning racecourse lands, including a site intended for tennis courts. Templeville claimed Leopardstown had misrepresented the site’s suitability by providing a map that showed one electricity cable but omitted a second cable crossing the site. Templeville sought to rescind the agreement or, alternatively, damages.
After a 14-day High Court hearing, the trial judge dismissed the counterclaim. He found that Templeville knew of the transverse cable and rejected Mr Smyth’s evidence that he did not know about it. Templeville appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court’s findings about Templeville’s knowledge could not stand and ordered a retrial of the misrepresentation issue before a different judge.
Leopardstown then appealed to the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal had properly applied the principles in Hay v O’Grady, which limit an appeal court’s ability to overturn findings made by a trial judge who heard the witnesses.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had exceeded its jurisdiction by treating the case as a fresh hearing and revisiting the trial judge’s credibility and factual findings. It said the finding that Mr Smyth was not a credible witness was a primary finding of fact, supported by evidence, and should not have been set aside. The Court also concluded that the High Court’s finding on Templeville’s knowledge resolved the counterclaim, so the further issue about the legal test for misrepresentation did not need to be decided.
The Court said the separate question of constructive notice did not arise on the facts of this appeal. It did not decide every aspect of the law on misrepresentation. The order restores the High Court outcome, which dismissed Templeville’s counterclaim except in respect of relief against forfeiture.