O Siodhachain v O'Mahony
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Kearns |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] IEHC 107 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2001 No.,13306p/2001 |
| Date | 31 October 2002 |
[2002] IEHC 107
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
LANDLORD & TENANT LAW AMENDMENT ACT 1860 S4
LANDLORD & TENANT LAW AMENDMENT ACT 1860 S3
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA V HOGAN 1996 3 IR 239
WALSH V LONSDALE 1882 21 CH D 9
CARROLL V CARROLL 1998 2 ILRM 218
GATIEN MOTOR CO B CONTINENTAL OIL CO 1979 IR 406
Synopsis:
CONTRACT
Undue influence
Sale of farmlands - Ejectment proceedings - injunction -
Whether document created a valid lease - Whether execution of document procured by undue influence - Whether agreement manifestly improvident - Whether plaintiffs could rely on doctrine of part performance - Whether defendants entitled to order for possession - Deasy's Act (2001/13306P - Kearns J - 31/10/02)
Ó Siodhachain v O'Mahony - [2002] 4 IR 147
Facts: The defendants were a married couple and the owners of farmlands in Kerry. The first named defendant left school at 16 and his background was in farming. The plaintiffs jointly operated a business providing assistance to people in legal difficulties. The service also involved providing counselling. The first named plaintiff was a well known political activist and author. The second named plaintiff had attended university and had worked as a teacher with AnCo. She was also the owner of a property in Cork. In 1998 the plaintiffs were living in rented accommodation in Kerry. The defendants wished to sell the farmlands and the plaintiffs expressed an interest. The parties developed a very close relationship and the plaintiffs began to advise the defendants on all manner of things including what they should do with the proceeds of sale of the farmlands. The first named plaintiff encouraged the second named defendant to develop more independence and gave her books on practical philosophy and psychology. He encouraged her to attend a course in Killarney which she did. He also recommended that the first named defendant attend a counsellor. On April 23, 1999 the parties executed a written document drawn up by the plaintiffs ("the first contract"). The defendants had not obtained legal advice. Under the first contract it appeared that the defendants, inter alia, agreed to lease the plaintiffs' property in Cork and the plaintiffs agreed, inter alia, to lease the farmlands in Kerry. The plaintiffs moved into the farmlands. In February 2000 the defendants instructed their solicitor to prepare a contract for the sale of the farmlands to the plaintiffs. However, the defendants' solicitor advised against proceeding with the sale. In late October the defendants again requested their solicitor to draw up another contract for the sale of the farmlands to the plaintiffs. This contract was sent back by the plaintiffs' solicitors in an amended form with a deposit of £100. The defendants' solicitor strongly advised the plaintiffs not to enter into the contract and the contract was never returned to the plaintiffs' solicitor. After unsolicited approaches from the plaintiffs, the defendants' solicitor advised the defendants to seek possession of their farmlands in Kerry and to move to eject the plaintiffs. District Court ejectment proceedings were commenced. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings claiming an injunction prohibiting the defendants from proceeding with the ejectment proceedings and declaration that the first contract was a valid lease. Mr. Justice Kearns stated that the issues to be determined were whether the first contract created a valid lease and if so had it been procured by undue influence and whether the defendants were entitled to an order for possession of the farmlands.
Held by Kearns J. in holding against the plaintiffs on all issues and making an order for possession in favour of the defendants that there was actual undue influence and the agreement was an extremely improvident one from the point of view of the defendants. At no stage was the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants a relationship of equals. On the one hand, the plaintiffs were an experienced, savvy duo specialising in paralegal and litigation work. On the other hand, the defendants had limited educational achievements. An accident had left the first named defendant with impaired eyesight and he was an emotionally underdeveloped and easily manipulated individual of limited intelligence. The plaintiffs insinuated themselves into the defendants' lives in a manner which was totally inappropriate for persons who had in mind purchasing the defendants' property. The plaintiffs' actions were designed to secure the defendants' property on the best possible terms. The first contract was not a valid lease because inter alia it did not specify any rent. The defendants could not rely on the equitable doctrine of part performance. The plaintiffs had remained in the farmlands merely as permissive occupants.
Mr. Justice Kearns delivered the 31st day of October, 2002.
This sorry saga has its origins in the desire of the defendants to sell all or portion of farmlands jointly owned by them and comprising about 70 acres at Ballybeg, Co. Kerry. The farm contains a dwelling house, a number of outhouses and sheds, various fields and is also in part bog land. The events giving rise to the present dispute between the parties arose following an unsuccessful public auction to sell the farm which took place on the 14th day of August 1998.
The defendants are a married couple with two young children who married in 1988. The first named defendant was born in or around 1966 and his background was in farming. He left school at 16 years of age. The farm had previously been in the ownership of Sean O'Mahony's family, but had been transferred to the defendants, subject to a right of residence in favour of Sean O'Mahony's parents. Prior to the auction in 1998 arrangements had been agreed between the defendants and the O'Mahony parents whereunder the O'Mahony parents would waive their right of residence if the farmhouse was sold, subject to being relocated at the defendants expense.
Following their marriage, the defendants had initially lived in the O'Mahony farmhouse at Ballybeg, but in 1992 moved to the nearby village of Gneeveguilla, where, up to and including the time of the auction, they lived in what had formerly been Geraldine O'Mahony's family home, which in addition had a small grocery shop and a number of petrol pumps.
Sean O'Mahony had been involved in a road traffic accident in 1983, following which he found it difficult to carry out farming work on the farm at Ballybeg. He also had some visual disability. In 1998, he and his wife were keen to sell off the farm and to move out of the area altogether. It was their intention at the time to place the proceeds of sale of the farm in an investment property in Dublin.
At the auction, the property was offered in different parcels, but neither the farm as a whole or the different parcels attracted any offers or any worthwhile interest. Later that evening, however, and without prior appointment, the plaintiffs arrived at the farmhouse and there spoke with Sean O'Mahony's father, indicating some degree of interest in the property. On that occasion, Mr. O'Mahony Snr. showed the plaintiffs around the farmhouse, and the yard and outhouses. A phone call was made to the defendants at Gneeveguilla to inform them that the plaintiffs were on the property and some days later the first meeting between the plaintiffs and the defendants took place.
The plaintiffs jointly operate as Paralegal Technical Allied Services, which was set up in the mid 1990s to provide assistance to people with legal difficulties. The services consist not merely of giving assistance in getting litigation organised and assembling paper work for that purpose, but in counselling clients and providing assistance to people and families with social or other problems. The evidence in the case indicates that during the period from August 1998 to March 2001, the plaintiffs were involved in investigative work in Donegal, were assisting various litigants in court cases both in Dublin and at different country locations and were also engaged in litigation on their own account.
Apart from his paralegal and litigation activities, the first named plaintiff is a political activist and author and producer of cultural and other works. He is a well known figure in the Kerry area.
The second named plaintiff was born and educated in Scotland and obtained a BA Honours degree in Paisley. She read for an MA in England. She qualified as a secondary school teacher and came to Ireland in 1982 where she did a FÁS retraining programme in UCC. Thereafter she worked with AnCO, teaching people how to set up in business. She became interested in legal work following the breakdown of her marriage in 1986 which led to frequent court appearances for which she could not get legal aid. She started a BCL course in UCC in 1998 and was conferred with a BCL degree in September 2001. She completed her LLB studies in September of 2001 and sat entrance examinations for the Law Society in April/May, 2002.
In August 1998, the plaintiffs were living in rented accommodation in Scartaglen, Co. Kerry, a property which they had to vacate by April of the following year. Mrs. Herron was also the owner of a terraced house at Sunday's Well in Cork, which had been vacant for a number of years and which was owned subject to a mortgage in favour of Cork Corporation. There are also other burdens affecting this property to which I shall later refer.
While Mr. Ó Siodhachain was distantly related to Sean O'Mahony, and while Mr. O'Mahony knew of Mr. Ó Siodhachain by reputation, the parties were not directly or previously acquainted until they first met some days after the abortive auction.
As much of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial