Devereux & Anor -v- Goff & Anor [2009] IEHC 398 (18 August 2009)

Devereux & Anor -v- Goff & Anor [2009] IEHC 398 (18 August 2009)

The contract was conditional upon planning permission being granted on terms satisfactory to the purchaser, including Part V compliance. As Part V compliance was unresolved and the purchaser did not express satisfaction, the contract was not enforceable by way of specific performance. The plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants were satisfied or precluded from relying on the condition. The contract was not a 'done deal' and remained contingent.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 398
Parties
Plaintiff: William Devereux; Plaintiff: Declan Devereux; Defendant: Francis Goff; Defendant: Goff Developments Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Conditional Contracts, Planning Permission, Part V Compliance, Option Agreements
Contract Law Property Law Specific Performance Conditional Contracts Planning Permission Part V Compliance Option Agreements

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

Parties

William Devereux

Plaintiff

Declan Devereux

Plaintiff

Francis Goff

Defendant

Goff Developments Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the agreement enforceable by way of specific performance?
  2. 2 Was the planning permission granted on terms 'satisfactory' to the purchaser under the contract?
  3. 3 Did Part V compliance constitute a condition precedent to completion?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was conditional upon planning permission being granted on terms satisfactory to the purchaser, including Part V compliance. As Part V compliance was unresolved and the purchaser did not express satisfaction, the contract was not enforceable by way of specific performance. The plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants were satisfied or precluded from relying on the condition. The contract was not a 'done deal' and remained contingent.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Specific performance refused
  • No order for return of deposit