The High Court awarded Domhnall Mac A Bhaird €162,939 in contractual interest after the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland delayed completing a property purchase. It rejected his separate claim for damages, finding that it sought a second recovery for the same loss.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 8 November 2016, concerned the amount due after an earlier ruling had granted the plaintiff specific performance of the sale contract. The earlier ruling, delivered on 5 April 2016, is identified as [2016] IEHC 223. This judgment dealt with the plaintiff’s claims for interest on the unpaid purchase balance and damages for the delay.
Under the contract made on 4 November 2011, the purchase price was €862,600. After a deposit of €86,260, €776,340 remained due. The parties agreed that the plaintiff was ready and willing to complete from 9 January 2013. The court had previously held that the purchaser was not entitled to rescind the contract and, subject to its right to appeal that decision, had been in default.
The purchaser argued that interest could not be claimed because the vendor had not given the written notice required by the contract’s general condition 25(b). The judge first found that the notice requirement did not apply because the parties had agreed changes to the closing date; the vendor had not used the contract’s mechanism to change it unilaterally. She added that, even if notice was required, the completion notice and the vendor’s solicitors’ letter of 11 January 2013 were adequate. The vendor’s notice of 9 January did not itself provide the required five working days’ notice. The court rejected the argument that issuing proceedings claiming interest could serve as contractual notice.
The court refused the plaintiff’s request for compound interest, finding no contractual basis to compound it. It also rejected the additional damages claim. The evidence was that the sale proceeds were to be used to discharge a mortgage and that the plaintiff had incurred bank interest while waiting for completion. The judge found that the claimed loss was the cost of being kept out of that money, which the contract’s interest provision was intended to compensate. Awarding damages as well would amount to double compensation. The court left open that damages might be available for a different class of loss, such as losing a known opportunity to use the money.
The court awarded contractual interest of €162,939. It made no separate damages award in this judgment.