270 / 270
GAZETTE
DECEMBER1980
a settlement followed some months
later.
In January 1979 the Defendants'
new solicitors wrote seeking a settle-
ment and the "acquisition of the rele-
vant property on mutually accep-
table terms". On 15 May 1979 the
Defendants offered to pay the
balance due, which offer was
rejected. By motion dated 25
September 1979 the Defendant
sought to have the suit reconstituted
and sought liberty to pay the sum of
£56,000 into Court. The present
Plaintiffs were joined in the action
and further negotiations took place
but were fruitless. The Defendants re-
entered their motion and the Plain-
tiffs re-entered their motion of 2
February 1977.
Held
(per Costello, J.): Rejecting the
Defendants' contention that its
jurisdiction was now confined to
making an order enforcing its earlier
specific performance order and
referring to
Johnson v. Agnew
(1979)
2W.L.R. 497, that the court still had
power to forfeit the deposit, bring the
contract to an end and order the
Defendant purchasers to pay
damages. A Court should be slow to
order forfeiture of a deposit and ter-
mination of a contract if at the hear-
ing the purchaser satisfied the Court
that:
(a) His previous non-compliance
with the Court order was due to
financial difficulties which have
now been overcome, and,
(b) he is able to compensate the
vendor for any loss his non-
compliance had caused him.
The Court found that there were no
circumstances in the case which
suggested that it should not follow
the general rule. The Court accepted
that the premises had greatly
increased in value and that the
Defendants had been twice in serious
default but the failure to seize the
opportunity
afforded by the
Defendants' second default and to
forfeit the deposit rested on the
successors of Mr. S.
The Court ordered the payment of:
(a) the balance of the purchase
price;
(b) the additional sums agreed to be
paid on the settlement of the
action; and,
(c) the capitalised value of the
interest on the balance of the pur-
chase money from 1 March
1975 to 10 December 1975.
Interest on the total of those amounts
was to be paid at the rate of 15% (the
contract rate) from 10 August 1976
to 14 January 1980 together with all
outgoings incurred by the deceased
vendor and his successors, and the
costs of the motion, the costs of the
action and the conveyancing costs
having already been met by the
Defendants.
H.S.
AND
S.S.
v
Estates
Management
&
Development
Agency Limited & Rosario Invest-
ments Limited.
High Court (per
Costello, J.) 14 July, 1980 —
unreported.
Summaries of judgments prepared
by John F. Buckley, Ciaran Keys,
Colin Keane, Kieran O'Brien and
edited by Michael V. O'Mahony.