The High Court has refused to strike out a claim over the house to be built on a site in Hollystown, Dublin 15, and has granted an interlocutory injunction restraining construction of a smaller house pending trial.
The injunction requires the defendants to build only a detached dwelling in accordance with plans covered by Fingal County Council planning permission granted in 2006. It is subject to an undertaking by the plaintiffs to pay damages if required. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to the larger house or whether the disputed agreement can be specifically enforced.
The dispute arises from a 2004 land sale contract. Its special condition provided for two completed four-bedroom houses to be sold to the vendor or nominees for €185,000 each. The second and third plaintiffs were nominated and chose the Hollystown site, which the judgment says backs onto their residential property.
The plaintiffs say the parties later agreed that the defendants would seek permission for a larger house and build it if permission was obtained, with the price increased in proportion to the house’s floor area. Planning permission for a 296-square-metre house was granted in 2006, replacing permission for a 189.27-square-metre house. The defendants dispute that they agreed to build the larger design or reached agreement on its specification and price. They say any alleged oral variation is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
The judge recorded evidence that foundations were consistent with the larger design, while blockwork was being built for the smaller house. She found a fundamental factual dispute over the house type, specification and price, along with difficult legal questions that would need to be resolved in the plaintiffs’ favour for them to succeed. At this stage, however, the defendants had not shown that the claim was bound to fail or that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
On the injunction, the judge found a fair question to be tried and considered damages inadequate for the plaintiffs if construction of the smaller house were completed before trial. She also found that damages would adequately compensate the defendants if the plaintiffs ultimately failed, and that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction. The stated purpose was to maintain the status quo until trial, when the factual conflicts and legal issues can be determined.