Forbes v. Tobin [2002] IESC 57 (17 July 2002)

Forbes v. Tobin [2002] IESC 57 (17 July 2002)

The trial judge erred in finding that the purchaser refused to pay VAT; the purchaser was willing to pay VAT if properly exigible but was not provided with sufficient evidence by the vendors. The vendors failed to meet their contractual obligations to provide particulars of development and VAT liability. The contract ought to be specifically performed.

Citation
[2002] IESC 57
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Cyril Forbes; Defendant/respondent: John Tobin; Defendant/respondent: Jeanette Tobin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Specific Performance
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, VAT on Property Transactions, Rescission of Contract, Completion Notices
Contract Law Property Law Tax Law Specific Performance VAT on Property Transactions Rescission of Contract Completion Notices

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyril Forbes

Plaintiff/appellant

John Tobin

Defendant/respondent

Jeanette Tobin

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchaser was entitled to specific performance of the contract for sale
  2. 2 Whether VAT was exigible on the sale and if so, on what basis
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser was ready, willing, and able to complete the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in finding that the purchaser refused to pay VAT; the purchaser was willing to pay VAT if properly exigible but was not provided with sufficient evidence by the vendors. The vendors failed to meet their contractual obligations to provide particulars of development and VAT liability. The contract ought to be specifically performed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter referred back to the High Court for further orders or inquiries necessary to give effect to the decision.