The High Court has ordered South Dublin County Council to complete an agreement to grant two service station operators interests in land beside their former petrol station site at Belgard Square, Tallaght. The order includes a disputed strip reserved for a possible LUAS extension, which the court found the council had agreed could be used until required for that purpose.
In a judgment delivered on 18 July 2007, Miss Justice Laffoy found that correspondence between the parties in 1999 and 2000 created an agreement in principle for disposal of the land, known as Square II. The plaintiffs were to receive a substantial interest in the plots. The LUAS reservation was to be made available by licence for as long as their interest in the rest of Square II, subject to the council resuming possession if required for a LUAS extension.
The council’s elected members later approved disposal on different terms. Those terms provided for a 99-year lease over the main plot, but a licence for the LUAS strip lasting four years and nine months, terminable by either party on three months’ notice. The council’s draft documents followed that approach. The judge found those terms were fundamentally at variance with what had been agreed.
The council had sent the first plaintiff a letter in November 2000 saying the strip would be available until required for LUAS and that a new licence would be considered if it was not required when the initial term expired. But the judge said this assurance fell short of formalising the agreement. In October 2001, the council maintained that it would not include the terms the plaintiffs sought in the licence. The judge found the council was then unwilling to complete the agreement as made and had breached contract.
The plaintiffs had sought specific performance, damages and alternative relief based on estoppel or legitimate expectation. The judge ordered specific performance of the agreement and said the council must produce a document reflecting the agreed terms and obtain any statutory approval needed. The plaintiffs must be satisfied with the form of the document and title matters. The court did not decide the alternative claim based on estoppel or legitimate expectation, finding it unnecessary after deciding the contractual claim.
The damages claim was left unresolved. The plaintiffs’ claimed loss depended in part on whether a separate transaction with Statoil concerning Square II would be completed. The judge adjourned the proceedings so the land agreement could be completed and the plaintiffs’ position with Statoil could be clarified. The case was listed for mention on 1 November 2007.