The High Court has refused an application by Phoenix Rock Enterprises, trading as Frank Pratt & Sons, to stop George R. Hughes from marketing or selling land at Clondoogan, Summerhill, Co Meath, pending trial of the company’s claim for specific performance.
The company says Hughes offered to sell the property for €1.2 million in a telephone call on 11 April 2023, subject to planning permission, and that it accepted by solicitor’s letter dated 20 April. Hughes denies making an offer and says he told the company that his family intended to sell the land by tender.
In a judgment delivered on 29 April 2024, Mr Justice Liam Kennedy said the interim application did not determine whether a contract had been made. The evidence was disputed, and the underlying issues would require determination at trial. The judge said the company had an arguable case on whether an offer was made and whether Hughes represented himself as sole owner, but found strong countervailing evidence.
The land had been bequeathed to Hughes and his family as tenants in common, and an application to update the property register remained pending. The judge said an injunction in the proceedings as constituted could not restrain family members who were not parties. The company had been given leave to join them but had not done so.
The judge also considered the parties’ earlier negotiations, during which solicitors had stated that no contract would exist until formal contracts were exchanged. He said the available evidence suggested the April 2023 discussions remained subject to contract, and that important matters—including the planning-permission period, deposit, completion arrangements and title—had not been resolved. He found insufficient evidence of meaningful part performance: the company had not signed a contract or paid a deposit, and the evidence of a planning consultant’s appointment did not show material effort or expense.
On the injunction test, the judge was not satisfied that the company had established a fair question to be tried as to an intention to conclude a binding deal, and said damages would be an adequate remedy for the company. He concluded that the balance of convenience and justice overwhelmingly favoured refusing interim relief. He made no final determination of the contract dispute. The case was listed for a hearing on 3 May 2024 to address discovery and submissions on whether costs should follow the event.