Ryan & ors -v- FAS & ors [2015] IEHC 777 (30 November 2015)

Ryan & ors -v- FAS & ors [2015] IEHC 777 (30 November 2015)

The court found that the correspondence and conduct of the defendants did not amount to an unequivocal representation or enforceable agreement to enter into a lease. The statements made were subject to final approval and funding, and did not satisfy the requirements for negligent misstatement or misrepresentation. The plaintiffs' reliance on the representations was not reasonable in the circumstances, and no actionable duty of care arose. The claim for legitimate expectation also failed as there was no clear, unambiguous representation upon which the plaintiffs could rely.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 777
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul Ryan; Plaintiff: Ellen Healy; Plaintiff: Billy Hayes; Defendant: FÁS; Defendant: Ballark Community Trading Centre Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Misrepresentation, Negligence, Breach of Duty, Legitimate Expectation, Agency, Public Authority Liability
Tort Law Contract Law Administrative Law Negligent Misstatement Misrepresentation Negligence Breach of Duty Legitimate Expectation +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Ryan

Plaintiff

Ellen Healy

Plaintiff

Billy Hayes

Plaintiff

FÁS

Defendant

Ballark Community Trading Centre Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are liable for negligent misstatement, misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of duty in relation to representations made regarding a lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate expectation that a lease would be entered into and whether damages are recoverable for breach of such expectation.
  3. 3 Whether the correspondence and conduct of the defendants amounted to an enforceable agreement or actionable representation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the correspondence and conduct of the defendants did not amount to an unequivocal representation or enforceable agreement to enter into a lease. The statements made were subject to final approval and funding, and did not satisfy the requirements for negligent misstatement or misrepresentation. The plaintiffs' reliance on the representations was not reasonable in the circumstances, and no actionable duty of care arose. The claim for legitimate expectation also failed as there was no clear, unambiguous representation upon which the plaintiffs could rely.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded to plaintiffs
  • No declaration of legitimate expectation