A contractor has been awarded €64,430 by the High Court after a dispute over renovation work at a house in Ranelagh, Dublin. The court found the homeowner breached their agreement by excluding the contractor from the property and effectively refusing to put it on the market for sale.
In a judgment delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy, the court held that the contractor could rescind the agreement and recover a reasonable sum for the work he had done on a quantum meruit basis. The house had not been sold, so the contract price—set at 12 per cent of the net sale price—could not be identified with any degree of certainty.
The agreement, signed in April 2000, required the contractor to complete specified building and renovation work. The homeowner had begun an extension and refurbishment but ran out of money while the house remained incomplete. The agreement envisaged that the property would be put on the market after the work was completed to a reasonable standard, with the contractor paid from the sale proceeds.
The work stopped around the end of September or beginning of October 2000. The contractor said the homeowner’s wife moved back into the house and made it difficult for him to return to finish snagging work. The wife said the contractor had agreed the family could move back while work continued and denied excluding him. The judge found it probable that she made matters difficult for the contractor and concluded that he had been excluded. The judge also found that the property was not going to be put up for sale to pay what was due under the agreement.
A defence argument that the agreement was void for lack of the wife’s prior written consent under the Family Home Protection Act was raised at the hearing, though it had not been pleaded. The judge found the property was not the family home at the relevant time: the family were ordinarily living elsewhere and had moved out in 1999. The judge added that even if the property had been the family home, the absence of consent would not have removed the homeowner’s liability for the contractor’s work.
The homeowner counterclaimed €30,167 for alleged damage and other works. The judge found the cost list included work outside the contractor’s obligations and was of little relevance, and held that the counterclaim had not been established. The judge accepted the contractor had received no cash payment, despite the homeowner’s evidence that IR£10,000 had been paid.
The contractor’s itemised claim was described as exaggerated. The court allowed IR£45,743 across specified work and expense items, plus IR£5,000 for remaining items, making IR£50,743, equivalent to €64,430. No proper basis was advanced for pre-judgment interest, and none was awarded. The court ordered the homeowner to pay €64,430.