Judgment: 2021-07-30 · Court archive

Supreme Court awards appeal costs to Doherty in Gibbons land dispute

The court said Gibbons’s conduct in accepting ADT as purchaser barred him from obtaining specific performance, and left the lower courts’ costs orders unchanged.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • John Gibbons (Plaintiff)
  • Daniel Doherty
  • ADT Investments Limited (Defendant)
  • John MacMenamin (Judge)
What

The court said Gibbons’s conduct in accepting ADT as purchaser barred him from obtaining specific performance, and left the lower courts’ costs orders unchanged.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Donegal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court held that Condition 30 of the Law Society General Conditions of Sale did not allow Doherty to escape liability. However, it concluded that Gibbons’s own conduct in accepting ADT Investments Limited as purchaser barred him from obtaining a decree of specific performance against Doherty. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful.

The Supreme Court awarded Daniel Doherty the costs of John Gibbons’s appeal over a contract to sell land in Donegal, and declined to alter the costs orders made by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The ruling on costs, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 30 July 2021, followed the Court’s decision on the appeal. Gibbons had sued for specific performance of the sale of the third of three lots. His claim was dismissed in the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court held that Condition 30 of the Law Society General Conditions of Sale did not allow Doherty to escape liability. However, it concluded that Gibbons’s own conduct in accepting ADT Investments Limited as purchaser barred him from obtaining a decree of specific performance against Doherty. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful.

In submissions on costs, Gibbons argued that he should not be liable because ADT, which he regarded as the unsuccessful litigant, should bear the costs. Doherty submitted that costs should follow the event, pointing to his success on issues including ADT’s acceptance as purchaser, the indivisibility of the contract and Gibbons’s inability to enforce it against him. He also said the Condition 30 issue had not significantly increased the time or cost of the appeal and had not changed its outcome.

Doherty further referred to separate proceedings in which Gibbons sought a declaration that he was beneficial owner of the lands in Lots 1 and 2. The High Court dismissed those proceedings as an abuse of process. Gibbons appealed that decision but withdrew the appeal in 2019, three years after the proceedings were first issued. Doherty said he had incurred expense defending them.

The Supreme Court applied the general costs principle under Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and section 169(1) of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015. It found no reason to make an exception: Doherty had succeeded in the appeal and in both lower courts. The order awards him the costs of the appeal and leaves the High Court and Court of Appeal costs orders undisturbed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review