Guilfoyle -v- Farm Development Co-operative Limited [2006] IESC 18 (23 March 2006)

Guilfoyle -v- Farm Development Co-operative Limited [2006] IESC 18 (23 March 2006)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to prefer the evidence of the defendant's witness over the plaintiff's, and that no binding oral agreement for the sale of shares at the claimed price was established. The findings of fact by the trial judge were supported by credible evidence and could not be overturned on appeal.

Citation
[2006] IESC 18
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Barry Guilfoyle; Defendant/respondent: Farm Development Co-operative Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Share Valuation, Specific Performance, Credibility of Witnesses
Contract Law Company Law Oral Contracts Share Valuation Specific Performance Credibility of Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Guilfoyle

Plaintiff/appellant

Farm Development Co-operative Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement was concluded for the purchase of the plaintiff's shares at a specified price
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in its assessment of evidence and findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to prefer the evidence of the defendant's witness over the plaintiff's, and that no binding oral agreement for the sale of shares at the claimed price was established. The findings of fact by the trial judge were supported by credible evidence and could not be overturned on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Refusal of declaration that the consideration of £72,000 is void
  • Refusal to grant specific performance of the alleged agreement at £120,000