The High Court has ordered specific performance of an agreement to exchange a Longford couple’s home for a new house, despite years of delay and missed contractual dates. It changed the construction completion date to 1 October 2006, or another date agreed by the parties.
In a judgment dated 12 May 2006, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy found that the agreement was certain, fair and just. The court said the developer had been unable to comply because of financial constraints arising from what appeared to be an overextension of building projects. It did not find that he had acted in bad faith or oppressively.
The agreement, made on 5 December 2001, was connected to the first plaintiff’s withdrawal of an objection and appeal concerning a proposed development at Farneyhoogan, County Longford. It provided for a new dwelling at Clonbalt and payments to the first plaintiff, who was to transfer her existing home once the new house was completed. The plaintiffs had sought specific performance or, alternatively, damages for breach of contract.
The judgment distinguished the developer’s obligation to provide money towards the site from a separate personal indemnity given by his solicitor, Brendan Liddy. The court found that the indemnity applied when the first plaintiff became liable to pay the balance to the developer of the Clonbalt property, after 1 March 2002. It did not arise simply because the developer had failed to meet his own payment obligation by that date.
Liddy paid €42,948.89 in November 2004. The judgment said that payment allowed matters to proceed after a stalemate, but also noted that the statement of claim delivered the following month did not reflect it. The court’s order addressed the agreement with the developer; it did not set out a damages award. It said counsel would be heard on the wording of the formal order.
The court considered the couple’s anxiety over the proposed development, their age and circumstances, and essential repairs they had postponed while relying on the agreement. It also noted that they did not wish to renegotiate and had concerns about having the developer or his agents build the house. A nominated engineer was to supervise construction, but the parties had not agreed a completion timetable beyond the revised date in the judgment.