The Court of Appeal has dismissed Roger McGreal’s appeal against the summary dismissal of his claim for specific performance over a proposed sale of a property at Carra Close, Westport, County Mayo.
McGreal claimed that Karen Whyte agreed in 2007 to buy the property from him personally for €511,615.75. He said she paid him a €5,000 deposit and that he carried out structural alterations she requested, but she did not complete the purchase. He sought specific performance or damages.
Whyte denied that she had concluded a contract with McGreal. Her position was that any proposed sale was to be between her and McGreal Construction Limited, of which he was a director. She relied on correspondence between solicitors and a proposed building agreement and contract for sale naming the company as vendor. The High Court dismissed McGreal’s claim under its inherent jurisdiction on the ground that it was bound to fail. The appeal concerned that dismissal, rather than a trial of the disputed contract claim.
In the Court of Appeal, Ms Justice Irvine said the handwritten notes McGreal relied on to support his alleged agreement raised a complex question under the Statute of Frauds that could not safely be resolved on an interlocutory application. She also said evidence that he had made alterations and allowed Whyte access to the property gave him an arguable case based on part performance, considered on its own.
However, the court found that the later documentary record undermined the claim. On McGreal’s instructions, the company’s solicitors sent Whyte’s solicitor a proposed contract naming the company as vendor. The subsequent correspondence repeatedly stated that negotiations were subject to contract and that no binding agreement would exist until contracts were signed and exchanged and the deposit paid.
The court concluded that those dealings were inconsistent with an earlier binding agreement between McGreal and Whyte. It held that the claim was fatally undermined by documents created on his instructions and that the High Court had not erred in dismissing it as bound to fail. The court did not decide the separate issue of who withdrew from the proposed company sale, and it did not rely on the delay before proceedings began. The appeal was dismissed.