The High Court has dismissed a claim by William and Declan Devereux for an order compelling Francis Goff and Goff Developments Ltd to complete the purchase of development land near Rosslare, Co Wexford. The court found that a key planning condition remained unresolved, so the agreement was not capable of specific performance. It heard no other claim for relief and deferred the question of costs for submissions.
The agreement, signed in July 2005, concerned about 20.8 acres at Churchtown. It set a price linked to planning permission for housing and included provisions allowing the purchaser to proceed or withdraw depending on whether permission was satisfactory. Permission for 130 homes was granted in May 2007, below the 150 units initially contemplated.
The Devereuxs argued that Goff or his company was required to complete the purchase within two months of the grant. They said the price should be reduced to about €4.59 million to account for the shortfall in approved homes. Goff said he would not proceed because the planning permission was not satisfactory, particularly because the parties had not resolved how to meet the council’s Part V social and affordable housing requirement.
Justice John MacMenamin found that the Part V issue was material and had not been settled between the parties and Wexford County Council. The permission required a Part V agreement before development began. The council later required 20% of the site to be reserved for social and affordable housing after no agreement was reached. No development commenced.
The judge found that Goff had been substantially involved in the planning process, and rejected parts of his evidence, but said that involvement did not establish that he was satisfied with the permission as a whole. The Devereuxs’ own evidence and their later proposals to address Part V also undermined their assertion that the sale was a completed deal. The court concluded that the purchaser’s satisfaction condition had not been fulfilled and that the parties had not reached agreement on an essential term.
The judge also construed the agreement as an option subject to conditions, rather than an unconditional obligation to buy. Because the planning and Part V arrangements remained uncertain, the conditions for completion had not been met. The claim for specific performance was dismissed. The court recorded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to another form of relief in the absence of such an order; costs remained to be addressed.