Gibbons v Doherty (Approved) [2021] IESC 53 (30 July 2021)

Gibbons v Doherty (Approved) [2021] IESC 53 (30 July 2021)

The appellant was unsuccessful in the appeal due to his own conduct in accepting ADT as purchaser, which debarred him from obtaining specific performance; costs should follow the event and be awarded to the successful respondent.

Citation
[2021] IESC 53
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: John Gibbons; Defendant/respondent: Daniel Doherty; Defendant/respondent: ADT Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
costs awarded to first-named respondent; no interference with previous costs orders
Legal Topics
Costs, Specific Performance, Contract Interpretation, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Specific Performance Contract Interpretation Abuse of Process

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gibbons

Plaintiff/appellant

Daniel Doherty

Defendant/respondent

ADT Investments Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Costs After Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should follow the event after dismissal of appeal for specific performance
  2. 2 Interpretation of Condition 30 of the Law Society General Conditions of Sale
  3. 3 Effect of appellant's conduct in accepting ADT as purchaser

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was unsuccessful in the appeal due to his own conduct in accepting ADT as purchaser, which debarred him from obtaining specific performance; costs should follow the event and be awarded to the successful respondent.

Court Disposition

costs awarded to first-named respondent; no interference with previous costs orders

Orders

  • Costs of the appeal awarded to first-named respondent
  • No interference with costs orders of High Court and Court of Appeal