William Bennett Construction Ltd. v. Greene & Anor [2004] IESC 15 (25 February 2004)

William Bennett Construction Ltd. v. Greene & Anor [2004] IESC 15 (25 February 2004)

There was no existing easement or quasi-easement for sewage disposal over the retained land at the time of the grant, nor any clear and unambiguous promise by the defendants to grant such a way leave. Therefore, neither the doctrine of derogation from grant nor promissory estoppel applied. The plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.

Citation
[2004] IESC 15
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: William Bennett Construction Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: John Greene; Defendant/respondent: Kathleen Greene
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Easements, Derogation From Grant, Promissory Estoppel, Conveyancing, Planning Permission
Property Law Contract Law Easements Derogation From Grant Promissory Estoppel Conveyancing Planning Permission

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Bennett Construction Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

John Greene

Defendant/respondent

Kathleen Greene

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor was obliged to grant a way leave for sewage disposal over retained land under the contract for sale and planning documents
  2. 2 Whether refusal to grant such way leave constituted derogation from grant
  3. 3 Whether promissory estoppel applied to prevent the vendor from refusing the way leave

Ratio Decidendi

There was no existing easement or quasi-easement for sewage disposal over the retained land at the time of the grant, nor any clear and unambiguous promise by the defendants to grant such a way leave. Therefore, neither the doctrine of derogation from grant nor promissory estoppel applied. The plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court affirmed.