Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused an application by the defendants to strike out the plaintiff’s proceedings, which arose from a dispute over whether an option to purchase a retail property was validly exercised under an option agreement. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims—including waiver of notice requirements and the possibility of estoppel—were not bound to fail, as there was sufficient evidence that could, at trial, support the assertion that the option was exercised, despite inconsistencies in the plaintiff's case. The only exception was the plaintiff’s claim based on part performance, which was struck out as unsustainable. The court emphasised that the threshold for striking out proceedings at a preliminary stage is high and should be exercised sparingly.
application to strike out proceedings – option agreement – specific performance – waiver of notice requirements – estoppel – part performance – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) Order 19 –rule 28 – retail property dispute – exercise of option – abuse of process – no reasonable cause of action – commercial lease – purchase price variation – contract negotiations–costs order
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.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now