Member Login

Vendors fail to establish entitlement to damages arising from delay in receiving the balance of purchase monies

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

Court of Appeal, in specific performance proceedings, allows appeal in part in respect of an award of damages at a rate of 10% per annum on the amount of the agreed sales price not received by the respondents on the agreed closing date for the period of 454 days up to the date of completion of the resale, finding that: if the vendors do not sell within the year, they can still seek to recover the shortfall as damages to which they are entitled at common law; and the vendors failed to adduce evidence to satisfy the Court that they have any entitlement to damages arising from the delay in receiving the balance of the purchase monies to the completion of the resale.

Assessment of damages - costs of legal proceedings – specific proceedings – defendant failed to complete the purchase – defendant defaulted deposit - declaration that the vendors were entitled to forfeit the deposit – entitled to the shortfall between - interest at 10% - damages of interest at 10% on the amount of the agreed sale price not received by the vendors for a period of 454 days until completion of the resale – Court of Appeal found that there was no basis in law or in fact for the trial judge to apply a rate of 10% per annum on the amount of the agreed sales price not received by the respondents on the agreed closing date for the period of 454 days up to the date of completion of the resale – Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge to this extent, that if the vendor does not sell within the year the vendor can still seek to recover the shortfall as damages to which they are entitled at common law - how these damages should be assessed – Court directions – delay in complying with the direction – affidavit evidence - interest which he avers was charged on foot of the First Facility – events pre-hearing – failure to comply with the Court’s directions – second affidavit of vendor - issues with the expenditure figures – professional fees - Administration and Management - onus of proving that the vendors suffered further loss arising from the resale rests with them – affidavits raised more questions than they answer - no satisfactory evidence to explain or justify the seven payments totalling €50,350 – not satisfied that there was any deficit - failed to adduce evidence from which the Court could be satisfied that they have any entitlement to interest in respect of the relevant borrowing from AIB, or any further damages, arising from the delay in receiving the balance of the purchase monies to the completion of the resale – orders – vendors entitled to recover as actual loss the interest that accrued in respect of the relevant borrowing from AIB for the period of 454 days from when the Contract for Sale should have closed to when the Contract for Sale with the third party actually closed as damages for breach of contract – counter claim dismissed – vendor won certain issues in the High Court, but lost on others, and that the defendant was to a significant extent successful on this appeal – High Court costs order vacated - no order in relation to the costs in the High Court - no order as to the costs of either party on the appeal, including the follow up hearing.

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *