Jodifern Ltd. v. Fitzgerald [1999] IESC 88; [2000] 3 IR 321 (21st December, 1999)

Jodifern Ltd. v. Fitzgerald [1999] IESC 88; [2000] 3 IR 321 (21st December, 1999)

The existence of executed written agreements, not headed 'subject to contract', raised a substantial issue of law as to whether a binding contract existed. This issue could not be resolved without a plenary hearing, and thus the proceedings could not be struck out as an abuse of process or as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Citation
[1999] IESC 88
Parties
Plaintiff: Jodifern Limited; Defendant: Patrick G. Fitzgerald; Defendant: Margaret Fitzgerald
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Land, Statute of Frauds, Abuse of Process, Summary Dismissal
Contract Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Sale of Land Statute of Frauds Abuse of Process Summary Dismissal

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

Parties

Jodifern Limited

Plaintiff

Patrick G. Fitzgerald

Defendant

Margaret Fitzgerald

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Striking Out Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether there was a concluded and enforceable contract for the sale of land between the parties
  3. 3 Whether the documents executed satisfied the Statute of Frauds

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of executed written agreements, not headed 'subject to contract', raised a substantial issue of law as to whether a binding contract existed. This issue could not be resolved without a plenary hearing, and thus the proceedings could not be struck out as an abuse of process or as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court striking out the proceedings set aside
  • Defendants' application to strike out the proceedings dismissed