Kavanagh v. Caulfield [2002] IEHC 67 (19 June 2002)

Kavanagh v. Caulfield [2002] IEHC 67 (19 June 2002)

The Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiff intended to carry out the contract in an illegal fashion or to defraud the Revenue. The contract was capable of being performed legally, and there was no evidence of turpitude or illegality sufficient to render the contract unenforceable. The Plaintiff did not exercise her option to rescind the contract, and the correspondence did not amount to rescission. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance.

Citation
[2002] IEHC 67
Parties
Plaintiff: Elizabeth Kavanagh; Defendant: Michael Caulfield
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Specific Performance / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for specific performance allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Illegality of Contract, Public Policy, Clean Hands Doctrine, Rescission
Contract Law Equity Specific Performance Illegality of Contract Public Policy Clean Hands Doctrine Rescission

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Kavanagh

Plaintiff

Michael Caulfield

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Specific Performance / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale was illegal and unenforceable due to alleged intention to defraud the Revenue Commissioners
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff was estopped from enforcing the contract due to denial of contract existence
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or rescission under the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiff intended to carry out the contract in an illegal fashion or to defraud the Revenue. The contract was capable of being performed legally, and there was no evidence of turpitude or illegality sufficient to render the contract unenforceable. The Plaintiff did not exercise her option to rescind the contract, and the correspondence did not amount to rescission. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for specific performance allowed

Orders

  • Court will hear Counsel as to necessary orders required