Griffin v. Madden [2001] IEHC 92 (11th May, 2001)

Griffin v. Madden [2001] IEHC 92 (11th May, 2001)

The agreement of 13th October 1994 is valid and enforceable. The Defendant's allegations of duress, fraud, or misrepresentation are unsupported by evidence. The boundary between the properties must be determined by reference to the title documents, as per the agreement, and is as shown by the red line A/B on Mr. Harewood's map. The Defendant was not entitled to erect the wall on the disputed property.

Citation
[2001] IEHC 92
Parties
Plaintiff: John Anthony Griffin; Defendant: Mary Madden
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action for Specific Performance and Damages for Breach of Contract / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for specific performance granted; declaration as to boundary granted; order for removal of wall at Defendant's expense; damages assessment deferred.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Boundary Dispute, Validity of Settlement Agreement
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Breach of Contract Boundary Dispute Validity of Settlement Agreement

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

Parties

John Anthony Griffin

Plaintiff

Mary Madden

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action for Specific Performance and Damages for Breach of Contract / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement of 13th October 1994 is valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was induced to sign the agreement by duress, fraud, or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the boundary between the properties should be determined as per the agreement and title documents

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement of 13th October 1994 is valid and enforceable. The Defendant's allegations of duress, fraud, or misrepresentation are unsupported by evidence. The boundary between the properties must be determined by reference to the title documents, as per the agreement, and is as shown by the red line A/B on Mr. Harewood's map. The Defendant was not entitled to erect the wall on the disputed property.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for specific performance granted; declaration as to boundary granted; order for removal of wall at Defendant's expense; damages assessment deferred.

Orders

  • Order for specific performance of the agreement of 13th October 1994
  • Declaration that the boundary is as shown by the red line A/B on Mr. Harewood's map (drawing No. 991/01, 17 December 1998)