A high Court judge has described as "totally devious" the conduct of the sellers of a Co Wick low site, which had planning per mission for a house but was later discovered to be "landlocked".
Mr Justice Geoghegan yesterday said Martin and Elizabeth Greene, formerly of Woodbrook Glen, Bray, Co Wicklow, and now believed to be resident in Australia, behaved in a totally devious way in the manner in which they had sold a site for a house at Blacklion, near Greystones, Co Wicklow.
Last month Mr Justice Geoghegan awarded damages of £202,198 and costs to Mr Terence and Ms Maureen Doran, of Rath down Park, Greystones, Co Wicklow, in an action taken by them against the Greenes and two firms of solicitors.
The Dorans sued their former solicitor, Mr Michael Delaney, practising as Michael J. Delaney and Co, South Frederick Street, Dublin; the Greenes and the Greenes' solicitors, Mr Joseph F. Maguire and Ms Della Power, practising as Joseph Maguire & Co, Main Street, Bray.
The Greenes did not attend yesterday's hearing and were not represented. Mr Delaney was present, and Maguire and Co were represented. Last month a barrister who had acted for the Greenes said his instructions in the case had been withdrawn, and he was no longer representing them.
Yesterday's hearing was for the purpose of apportioning liability for damages in the matter. Mr Justice Geoghegan made an order directing that two-thirds be paid by Mr Delaney and one-third by Mr Maguire and Ms Power. Both sets of solicitors were fully indemnified against the the Greenes.
The judge said it was his belief that the major responsibility fell on the plaintiffs' former solicitor, Mr Delaney. It had been up to him to ensure that the Dorans did not get a bad title to the land and he should have been wary of the replies he had received from Maguire and Co, on behalf of the Greenes.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the Dorans, when they went to purchase the land, had never been told there was a dispute over a 54 sq m section of the site included by the Greenes in a planning application.
That portion of the site was vital for providing access, but the dispute over it was not communicated to the Dorans when they bought the site. They were not told of a neighbour's claim to the portion of land.
In response to a requisition on title which asked whether there was any dispute with adjoining owners in relation to party walls or fences, the solicitors for the Greenes had replied: "Vendor says no". Asked if there was any litigation pending or threatened in relation to the property or whether any adverse claim had been made in respect of it, the Greenes' solicitor replied: "Vendor says none".
Earlier in yesterday's hearing the judge refused an application for a stay on his order for damages. He took into account the long history of the case and other factors. This did not prevent either firm of solicitors from appealing to the Supreme Court.