McMahon v. O'Loughlin [2005] IEHC 196 (9 June 2005)

McMahon v. O'Loughlin [2005] IEHC 196 (9 June 2005)

The contract for sale was void for want of prior written consent of the vendor's spouse under the Family Home Protection Act, 1976. The plaintiff had constructive notice of the Shell solus agreement but, due to special condition 4 and clear requisitions, was entitled to proceed on the basis that he would not be bound by it. However, the absence of spousal consent rendered the contract void and incapable of specific performance.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 196
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael McMahon; Defendant: Patrick O'Loughlin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Property / High Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for specific performance refused; contract declared void for want of prior spousal consent.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Constructive Notice, Vendor Disclosure Obligations, Family Home Protection Act Compliance, Fixtures and Fittings, Solus Agreements, Severance of Contract
Contract Law Property Law Family Law Specific Performance Breach of Contract Constructive Notice Vendor Disclosure Obligations Family Home Protection Act Compliance +3 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael McMahon

Plaintiff

Patrick O'Loughlin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Property / High Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or damages for breach of contract for sale of land and business
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had constructive notice of the Shell solus agreement and its implications
  3. 3 Whether the contract was void for lack of prior written consent of the vendor's spouse under the Family Home Protection Act, 1976

Ratio Decidendi

The contract for sale was void for want of prior written consent of the vendor's spouse under the Family Home Protection Act, 1976. The plaintiff had constructive notice of the Shell solus agreement but, due to special condition 4 and clear requisitions, was entitled to proceed on the basis that he would not be bound by it. However, the absence of spousal consent rendered the contract void and incapable of specific performance.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for specific performance refused; contract declared void for want of prior spousal consent.

Orders

  • Contract for sale declared void under s.3 Family Home Protection Act, 1976.
  • Specific performance refused.