Maloney v O'Connor & anor [2015] IEHC 678 (03 November 2015)

Maloney v O'Connor & anor [2015] IEHC 678 (03 November 2015)

The court found that the contract of sale was for consideration comprising both the cash price and the Split Benefit (stamp duty saving), that this was sufficiently evidenced in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and that the applicant, having failed to discharge the Split Benefit, could not in equity compel the respondents to perform their trustee duties or obtain the orders sought.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 678
Parties
Applicant: George Maloney; Respondent: Ted O’Connor; Respondent: Donal Dunne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trustee Act 1893 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Consideration, Statute of Frauds, Trustee Removal and Appointment, Collateral Contract, Parol Evidence Rule, Bankruptcy and Trusts
Equity Trusts and Trustees Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Sale of Land Consideration Statute of Frauds +4 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Maloney

Applicant

Ted O’Connor

Respondent

Donal Dunne

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trustee Act 1893 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the consideration for a contract for the sale of land where the contract is silent as to consideration?
  2. 2 Should the court direct trustees to perform their duties where the applicant has not discharged the consideration due under the contract?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contract of sale was for consideration comprising both the cash price and the Split Benefit (stamp duty saving), that this was sufficiently evidenced in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and that the applicant, having failed to discharge the Split Benefit, could not in equity compel the respondents to perform their trustee duties or obtain the orders sought.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • All orders sought by Mr Maloney refused