Court dispute over £3m site

A dispute over an alleged agreement to sell for £3 million a site beside a house on Dublin's Shrewsbury Road has come before …

A dispute over an alleged agreement to sell for £3 million a site beside a house on Dublin's Shrewsbury Road has come before the High Court.

A company director, Mr Sean Dunne, of Foxrock, Co Dublin, has taken proceedings against Mr Niall O'Farrell, a businessman, of Monkstown, Co Dublin.

Mr Dunne claims Mr O'Farrell agreed in July 1999 to sell him a site of 0.2 acres at Shrewsbury Road, Donnybrook, which was beside a house and had full planning permission. He claims it was agreed the site would be developed as a family residence. It was also allegedly agreed no planning application would be made until unconditional contracts had been signed.

It is claimed it was further agreed that any discussions which did take place should not prejudice Mr O'Farrell's application for permission in respect of the development of the lands being retained by him.

READ MORE

Mr Dunne claims it was implied in the agreement that Mr O'Farrell would not carry out any development on the property being retained by him which was not in conformity with permission granted by the planning authority to Mr O'Farrell in May 1999.

It is alleged that Mr O'Farrell subsequently sought to require Mr Dunne to accept a reduction in the size of the site which was the subject of the agreement. Mr Dunne was not prepared to accept the reduction. It is also claimed that the defence had failed to demonstrate works commenced by Mr O'Farrell on the house being retained by him were being carried out in compliance with the terms of the planning permission. In a letter of December 23rd last, Mr O'Farrell purported to rescind the sale.

Mr Justice O'Neill is being asked by Mr Dunne for an order restraining Mr O'Farrell from taking any further steps to carry out the development unless in compliance with planning permission. Mr Dunne is also seeking an order for specific performance of the June 1999 agreement.

The defence denies that Mr O'Farrell had breached the agreement or that works carried out by Mr O'Farrell on the property were materially different from works authorised by planning permission.