The Gazette 1980

DECEMBER1980

GAZETTE

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

(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.

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;