The High Court struck out a negligence claim against a firm of solicitors after two homebuyers said they suffered distress and inconvenience when they were pursued for an unpaid planning levy. The ruling was limited to the claim against the solicitors; claims against the developer defendants were not before the court on this application.
In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2014, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan considered an application by four solicitor defendants to strike out the proceedings. They argued that the losses claimed were not recoverable in negligence and that the claim should also be struck out for lack of authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.
The plaintiffs alleged that they agreed in July 2006 to buy land and a house to be built at No. 2 Avondale Court, Ballyguile, County Wicklow. A planning condition required a contribution of €32,943.80 for local services and amenities. The plaintiffs said the developer certified that the levy had been paid, and alleged that the certificate was inaccurate. They further alleged that the solicitors, acting for the developer, released the purchase funds before receiving confirmation from Wicklow County Council or receipts for the levy.
The solicitors denied the allegations, and the judge said he had to assume for the application that the plaintiffs could prove the pleaded facts. He also noted there was nothing to suggest a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the solicitors, so he considered their claim against them as one in negligence and breach of duty.
After the sale closed, the couple moved into the house. In March 2011, the Council notified them that the contribution remained unpaid and that about €36,322 was due. The Council’s letter warned that the dwelling might be unauthorised and invited submissions; a later demand sought payment within 14 days and threatened injunction proceedings. The judge described the correspondence as upsetting and said the plaintiffs suffered acute distress and upset between March 2011 and March 2013.
In March 2013, the Council said it would transfer €24,020 from cash security held for another development to cover the outstanding contribution, and confirmed that the relevant planning condition had been complied with for the house. The solicitors argued that this made the matter moot. The judge rejected that argument, but held that the type of loss claimed could not sustain the negligence action: there was no evidence of nervous shock or psychiatric illness, and distress and inconvenience alone were not recoverable in negligence on these facts.
The court struck out the case against the solicitor defendants alone, relying on its inherent jurisdiction and describing the ground as narrow. It did not decide the Personal Injuries Assessment Board issue. The judgment did not determine the claims against the developer defendants, who were not parties to the application.