The High Court has refused to order a purchaser to complete a €1.5 million sale of a property near Schull, Co Cork, after finding that the price depended on representations and plans designed to undermine the planning process.
In a judgment delivered on 1 December 2008, Mr Justice Charleton said he would otherwise have been satisfied that the vendor and purchaser had entered an enforceable contract. But he declined to grant specific performance, an equitable remedy that would have compelled the purchaser to complete the purchase.
The property at Coosheen comprised about 2.5 acres, with a bungalow, a stone ruin and wooded ground. The court heard that the purchaser was attracted by the prospect of replacing the bungalow with a larger house and adding two more dwellings. An architect’s planning appraisal said the site was in a scenic coastal area and that one additional dwelling might be permitted, subject to planning requirements.
The judge considered evidence about discussions between the purchaser and the vendor’s agent. The agent was said to have proposed replacing the ruin’s roof to support a planning application and finding a local person who met rural housing criteria to apply for a house on the wooded part of the site. The purchaser’s architect gave evidence that the agent described the prospect of three residential units. The judge accepted the agent’s evidence that the purchaser instructed him to arrange roof work and tree removal.
The purchaser’s evidence that the agent had described a three-house development was not challenged. The judge found that the sale price would not have been achieved without representations that made the property appear more valuable than it was, including plans to present the ruin and a proposed local housing application in a way that would circumvent planning controls.
The court did not rule on whether the contract was illegal. It decided the narrower question of whether equity should assist the vendor by compelling completion at a price achieved through the scheme described in the evidence. The judge said the planning system depended on honest applications and that the court could not ignore the evidence and correspondence.
The judgment refused the court’s aid to enforce the contract. It did not determine a planning application or make a finding that permission had been granted for any additional dwelling.