Globe Entertainments Ltd & anor -v- The Pub Pool Ltd (in receivership) & ors [2015] IEHC 115 (24 February 2015)

Globe Entertainments Ltd & anor -v- The Pub Pool Ltd (in receivership) & ors [2015] IEHC 115 (24 February 2015)

No binding contract was concluded for the sale of the premises or compromise of personal liabilities. Essential terms, including closing date and proof of funding, were not agreed. The chain of correspondence did not satisfy statutory requirements for enforceability. Negotiations were 'without prejudice' and subject to contract. The receiver alone was the vendor, not Ulster Bank.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 115
Parties
Plaintiff: Globe Entertainments Ltd; Plaintiff: Sean Doyle; Defendant: The Pub Pool Ltd (in receivership); Defendant: Tom Kavanagh; Defendant: Ulster Bank Ireland Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Final Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Statute of Frauds, Agency, Receiver's Powers
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Sale of Land Statute of Frauds Agency Receiver's Powers

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Globe Entertainments Ltd

Plaintiff

Sean Doyle

Plaintiff

The Pub Pool Ltd (in receivership)

Defendant

Tom Kavanagh

Defendant

Ulster Bank Ireland Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there a binding contract for the sale of the premises?
  2. 2 Who was the vendor in the alleged contract?
  3. 3 Did the memorandum satisfy statutory requirements for enforceability?

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was concluded for the sale of the premises or compromise of personal liabilities. Essential terms, including closing date and proof of funding, were not agreed. The chain of correspondence did not satisfy statutory requirements for enforceability. Negotiations were 'without prejudice' and subject to contract. The receiver alone was the vendor, not Ulster Bank.

Court Disposition

action dismissed