Collins -v- Gleeson & Ors [2011] IEHC 200 (12 May 2011)

Collins -v- Gleeson & Ors [2011] IEHC 200 (12 May 2011)

The contract was not conditional on obtaining planning permission. The events relied upon by the defendants as frustrating were either known or reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract. The doctrine of frustration does not apply as there was no fundamental change of circumstances outside the contemplation of the parties. The plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to complete the contract, and the defendants executed unconditional contracts. The defendants are not entitled to rescind the contract or recover the deposit.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 200
Parties
Plaintiff: Mary Collins; Defendant: Frank Gleeson; Defendant: Declan Gleeson; Defendant: Patrick Joseph (P.J.) Gleeson
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Plenary Summons / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim succeeds; contract not frustrated.
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Specific Performance, Planning Permission, Force Majeure
Contract Law Property Law Frustration of Contract Specific Performance Planning Permission Force Majeure

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

Parties

Mary Collins

Plaintiff

Frank Gleeson

Defendant

Declan Gleeson

Defendant

Patrick Joseph (P.J.) Gleeson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Summons / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract for sale was frustrated by external events
  2. 2 Whether the contract was conditional on obtaining planning permission
  3. 3 Entitlement to specific performance or damages

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was not conditional on obtaining planning permission. The events relied upon by the defendants as frustrating were either known or reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract. The doctrine of frustration does not apply as there was no fundamental change of circumstances outside the contemplation of the parties. The plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to complete the contract, and the defendants executed unconditional contracts. The defendants are not entitled to rescind the contract or recover the deposit.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim succeeds; contract not frustrated.

Orders

  • Specific performance not granted; damages in lieu awarded.
  • Deposit of €500,000 not refundable to defendants.