The High Court has found that three defendants are contractually bound to provide road access and services for retained lands at Ashbourne, County Meath. The court found a breach of contract because they disputed the plaintiff’s entitlement, but did not make a final order on the remedy.
Kathleen Geraghty brought the proceedings as owner of about 26 acres retained after the sale of other lands once owned by Agnes Armstrong. She had also received an assignment of the vendor’s interests in the contracts for the sales. The contracts required the purchaser to construct a distributor road through the sold lands, grant rights to use that road and other estate roads, provide way-leaves for services, and bring main services to the retained lands.
The defendants admitted the relevant special conditions but denied that they required a connection from the retained lands to a public road or public services. They argued that constructing the road as the plaintiff claimed would require the cooperation of a neighbouring property company, McCabe, and that the contracts did not oblige them to obtain rights over its private road. They also submitted that the complaint was premature because development of the retained lands was not planned and would require zoning and planning permission.
The court heard evidence about the limited frontage of the sold lands on Race Lane, a public road, and whether it could accommodate a road meeting council standards. The defendants’ engineer said it could not; the plaintiff’s engineer said the frontage had potential to make a 24-foot road feasible. The judge noted that the evidence on the public road’s precise extent was not clear.
Justice Laffoy construed the contracts as requiring access to and from a public road, reasoning that access for future development could only be achieved by a new road connecting to one. She also found that the service way-leaves had to connect the retained lands to main or public services. She said it was unnecessary to rely on an easement or way-leave of necessity.
The judge found the defendants bound by special conditions 6 to 9. She said that, had they maintained the position set out in their solicitors’ March 2004 letter, a breach could not yet have been established because the retained lands were not zoned for development and no planning permission had been sought. But by contesting the plaintiff’s entitlement under the contract, the defendants breached their obligations.
The court did not determine the appropriate remedy. Justice Laffoy said declaratory relief might be suitable and considered whether the declared rights should be registered as burdens on the defendants’ folio for sold lands that had not been disposed of. She had formed no final view on that point. The court also did not decide what remedy would apply if performance later proved impossible, saying that issue did not arise at this stage.