Roche & Anor -v- Leacy [2012] IEHC 96 (29 February 2012)

Roche & Anor -v- Leacy [2012] IEHC 96 (29 February 2012)

The defendant was not entitled to rescind the contract as the plaintiffs were in a position to furnish good marketable title free from the lis pendens by the completion deadline. The notice to complete was valid, and the contract subsists. Plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 96
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Roche; Plaintiff: James Roche; Defendant: Philip Leacy
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
29 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings (high Court, Ireland) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Specific performance ordered against the defendant; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Vendor and Purchaser, Lis Pendens, Registered Land, Breach of Contract
Property Law Contract Law Specific Performance Vendor and Purchaser Lis Pendens Registered Land Breach of Contract

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

Parties

Patrick Roche

Plaintiff

James Roche

Plaintiff

Philip Leacy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Plenary Proceedings (high Court, Ireland) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice to complete dated 28th January, 2009 was a valid notice under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had complied with their contractual obligations in relation to title by 2nd March, 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was not entitled to rescind the contract as the plaintiffs were in a position to furnish good marketable title free from the lis pendens by the completion deadline. The notice to complete was valid, and the contract subsists. Plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance.

Court Disposition

Specific performance ordered against the defendant; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Order for specific performance of the contract against the defendant
  • Dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim