O'Dwyer & anor -v- Boyd & anor O'Dwyer & anor -v- Boyd & anor [2008] IESC 6 (04 March 2008)

O'Dwyer & anor -v- Boyd & anor O'Dwyer & anor -v- Boyd & anor [2008] IESC 6 (04 March 2008)

The Supreme Court found that the High Court was correct in determining that the settlement agreement included a term regarding reserved costs. The plaintiffs' insistence on additional costs constituted a repudiation of the agreement, which was accepted by the defendants. As a result, there was no longer a contract to enforce, and specific performance was refused. The claim of defamation failed both on technical pleading grounds and on the merits, as the statements were not defamatory and the property remained legally owned by the defendant. The agent (Dillon) was not personally liable for the principal's obligations.

Citation
[2008] IESC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Declan O'Dwyer; Plaintiff: Julia Jones-O'Dwyer; Defendant: Robin Boyd; Defendant: Andrew Dillon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal of Mr. Boyd allowed; appeals by Mr. and Mrs. O'Dwyer dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Settlement Agreements, Repudiation, Costs in Litigation, Defamation, Agency Law
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Settlement Agreements Repudiation Costs in Litigation Defamation +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Declan O'Dwyer

Plaintiff

Julia Jones-O'Dwyer

Plaintiff

Robin Boyd

Defendant

Andrew Dillon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement of 11 August 2004 included a term regarding reserved costs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs repudiated the settlement by seeking additional costs
  3. 3 Whether specific performance of the settlement agreement should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the High Court was correct in determining that the settlement agreement included a term regarding reserved costs. The plaintiffs' insistence on additional costs constituted a repudiation of the agreement, which was accepted by the defendants. As a result, there was no longer a contract to enforce, and specific performance was refused. The claim of defamation failed both on technical pleading grounds and on the merits, as the statements were not defamatory and the property remained legally owned by the defendant. The agent (Dillon) was not personally liable for the principal's obligations.

Court Disposition

Appeal of Mr. Boyd allowed; appeals by Mr. and Mrs. O'Dwyer dismissed.

Orders

  • No order for specific performance of the settlement agreement of 11 August 2004
  • No contract now exists between the parties as to the property