The High Court has granted farmer Simon Mangan relief against forfeiture of a lease linked to a €4 million sale of 205 acres at Garristown in North County Dublin, while imposing conditions requiring him to complete his planned repurchase of the property and address pollution obligations.
Ms Justice Laffoy delivered judgment on August 24, 2009, in proceedings brought by Patrick and Liam Foley. The parties had entered a composite transaction in October 2004 under which Mangan sold the lands to the Foleys, leased most of them back for four years and nine months, and received an option to repurchase most of the property.
The Foleys later sought possession, alleging unpaid rent and breaches concerning slurry pollution and insurance.
The court rejected their rent case. Laffoy J found that rent associated with grain facilities had effectively been settled when the Foleys bought Mangan's grain business in 2005. She also found that the alternative farmland supplied by Mangan had ultimately been accepted as satisfying the rent-in-kind arrangement for the agricultural lands.
However, the court upheld the Foleys' complaint about pollution. It found that before March 2006 Mangan's farming activities had caused slurry to escape, resulting in contamination and pollution. That amounted to “waste” under the lease. A forfeiture notice served on March 2, 2006 adequately identified the breach, and Mangan had not remedied it before proceedings were issued in July.
The Foleys therefore acquired a right to forfeit the lease. But Laffoy J exercised the court's statutory discretion to grant Mangan relief against forfeiture.
She found that although the Foleys had genuine concerns about pollution, a major motivation for the proceedings was to prevent Mangan exercising his option to buy the farm back.
Relief was made conditional on payment of the €100,000 option deposit, proof of finance to complete the €5.75 million balance, an undertaking to comply with waste and pollution laws, and payment of the Foleys' litigation costs. If those conditions were not satisfied, the court indicated that possession would be granted to the Foleys.