J.C. v W.C. (Specific Performance)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judgment Date: 19 December 2003
• Docket Number: [2003 No. 10 CA]
• Date: 19 December 2003

[2004] IEHC 33

High Court

[2003 No. 10 CA]

J.C. v. W.C. (Specific performance)

J.C.

Plaintiff

and

W.C.

Defendant

Cases mentioned in the report:-

In re Basham [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1498; [1987] 1 All E.R. 405.

Byrne v. Byrne (Unreported, High Court, Gilligan J., 11th December, 2003).

Cameron v. Cameron (1892) 11 N.Z.L.R. 642.

Crabb v. Arun District Council [1976] Ch. 179; [1975] 3 W.L.R. 847; [1975] 3 All E.R. 865.

Dillwyn v. Llewelyn (1862) 4 De Gex F. & J. 517.

Inwards v. Baker [1965] 2 Q.B. 29; [1965] 2 W.L.R. 212; [1965] 1 All E.R. 446.

Jones v. Padavatton [1969] 1 W.L.R. 328; [1969] 2 All E.R. 616.

McCarron v. McCarron (Unreported, Supreme Court, 13th February, 1997).

McQuaid v. Lynam [1965] I.R. 564.

Pascoe v. Turner [1979] 1 W.L.R. 431; [1979] 2 All E.R. 945.

Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) L.R. 1 H.L. 129.

Silver Wraith Ltd. v. Siúcra Éireann éireann c.p.t. (Unreported, High Court, Keane J., 8th June, 1989).

Smyth v. Halpin [1997] 2 I.L.R.M. 38.

Steadman v. Steadman [1976] A.C. 536; [1974] 3 W.L.R. 56; [1974] 2 All E.R. 977.

Land - Equity - Promissory estoppel - Legitimate expectation - Part performance - Inter-family arrangement - Specific performance - Distinction between present entitlement and right to inherit - Whether enforceable agreement in existence - Whether concluded contract - Whether terms of contract shown plainly and distinctly - Whether absence of consideration.

Appeal from the Circuit Court

The facts of the case have been summarised in the headnote and are more fully set out in the judgment of Murphy J., infra.

By notice of appeal dated the 26th June, 2002, the defendant appealed from the order of the Circuit Court sitting in Wicklow of the 25th June, 2002. An ejectment civil bill had been filed with the Circuit Court on the 21st November, 2001, and a defence and counterclaim on the 22nd January, 2002. The appeal came on for hearing before the High Court (Murphy J.) by way of rehearing and was heard on the 7th, 8th, 9th, 15th, 16th and 17th October, 2003.

The defendant appeared in person.

The plaintiff, who was the father of the defendant, filed an ejectment civil bill in the Circuit Court seeking, inter alia, an injunction restraining the defendant from attending at the plaintiff's house and lands and restraining the defendant from intimidating the plaintiff and any other person the plaintiff desired to bring onto the premises. The defendant counterclaimed seeking, inter alia,declarations that the lands and premises were held by the plaintiff in trust for the plaintiff and the defendant for their lives and thereafter for the defendant in fee simple and that he was entitled to the entire legal and beneficial interest in the said premises on the demise of the owner; a declaration as to the entire legal and beneficial interest in the property and an order for specific performance of an agreement partly performed by the defendant or in the alternative directing the plaintiff as trustee to convey the lands and premises so as to execute the trust. The plaintiff was successful in the Circuit Court and the defendant appealed to the High Court.

The defendant argued, inter alia, that he believed and was led to believe that in return for working on the plaintiff's lands he would on the plaintiff's death inherit the lands including the family home. He claimed that this was a promise in respect of which he acted to his detriment by staying on the farm and inter alia,leaving school at the age of fifteen to commence working the lands and making significant financial contributions to the farm in reliance on the said promise. Evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff that a house and lands had been transferred by him to the defendant, that the defendant had been paid for work he had done on the plaintiff's farm and that the defendant had been employed outside of the farm.

Held by the High Court (Murphy J.), in granting the relief sought by the plaintiff and in dismissing the counterclaim, 1, that, for a person to rely on the doctrine of part performance in an application for specific performance, there must be a concluded contract.

McQuaid v. Lynam [1965] I.R. 564 followed.Smyth v. Halpin[1997] 2 I.L.R.M. 38 and Steadman v. Steadman[1976] A.C. 536 considered.

2. That applications seeking specific performance against estates of deceased persons should be treated with great caution. While the onus of proof remained the balance of probabilities, the acts of part performance should be unequivocally referable to the type of contract alleged.

Silver Wraith Ltd. v. Siúcra Éireann éireann c.p.t. (Unreported, High Court, Keane J., 8th June, 1989) applied.

3. That there was a distinction between cases where persons claimed a present entitlement and those where a right to inherit was sought to be enforced after the death of the owner of the property.

McCarron v. McCarron (Unreported, Supreme Court, 13th February, 1997), Byrne v. Byrne (Unreported, High Court, Gilligan J., 11th December, 2003), Jones v. Padavatton[1969] 1 W.L.R. 328 and Cameron v. Cameron (1892) 11 N.Z.L.R. 642 considered.

4. That parents had a right to the quiet enjoyment of their home and lands. There was no legal obligation to provide for their adult children during their lifetime. Parents were also entitled to exercise their discretion with regard to testamentary provision...