The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by William Bennett Construction Ltd over a proposed sewage pipe route across land retained by the sellers of a housing development site in Clonroche, Co Wexford. It affirmed the High Court order refusing the company’s claim for relief, including an injunction to prevent the sellers from blocking the route.
The dispute arose from a site layout plan accompanying outline planning permission for 18 houses. The plan showed a sewage drain crossing land the defendants, John and Kathleen Greene, intended to retain. The company agreed to buy the development site for £250,000, subject to obtaining planning permission. Approval for the development issued in November 2000, and the sale was completed in January 2001.
The sellers later refused to allow a pipe to cross their retained land. At trial, William Bennett said he had discussed the route with John Greene before agreeing to buy. Greene denied that account. The trial judge preferred Greene’s evidence and found that sewage disposal had not been discussed at that meeting. The Supreme Court noted that the company accepted it could not challenge that credibility finding on appeal.
The company argued that refusing the route derogated from the grant of the land, given the known development purpose and the evidence that an alternative route would cost more than £120,000. It also relied on the Conveyancing Act 1881 and argued that the sellers were bound by promissory estoppel.
The Supreme Court held that no sewage easement existed when the land was sold: the sellers had never used their land to carry sewage for the benefit of the site being sold. The plan showed a proposed drainage route for a possible development, but that did not create an existing right that passed with the conveyance. The court said section 6 of the 1881 Act did not enlarge the purchaser’s rights under the sale contract.
The court also rejected the estoppel argument. It found no clear and unambiguous promise by the sellers to grant a right to lay a pipe across the retained land. Even on Bennett’s account, the first defendant had only agreed that the plan showed that route. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.