Commercial Court faces litany of contract disputes

THE Commercial Court is being “littered” with claims for specific performance of contracts, including many contracts for the sale of lands for development, a judge said yesterday.

Among such cases which came before Mr Justice Peter Kelly was a claim by two businessmen for an order requiring a construction company to honour an alleged agreement reached two years ago for the €39.5 million sale of development lands at Youghal, Co Cork.

Another company, Dasnoc Ltd, is facing claims totalling €17m over two separate contracts.

In other proceedings, Leo Mohan and Conor Mohan, said to conduct business from an address at Ailesbury Road, Dublin 4, are being sued by Emmet Memery, said to conduct business from Lower Leeson Street, for specific performance of a contract of June 2007 to purchase for €4m an interest in 1-2 Victoria Buildings, Haddington Road, Dublin 4. Under that contract, the defendants had to pay a deposit of €100.

Both sides have agreed mediation may be appropriate in the case, Mr Justice Kelly was told and he adjourned it for four weeks to facilitate that.

The judge dealt with 14 new cases in the Commercial Court list yesterday, seven of which sought specific performance of contracts. He also made directions relating to about 60 other cases on the way to full hearing.

Among the new cases are proceedings by John Coleman, of Kilcronin, Whitechurch, Co Cork, and Michael A Coleman, of Tower Bridge, Blarney, Co Cork, against Murphy Construction (Carrigtwohill) Ltd, arising from an agreement of October 31, 2006, under which they claim they agreed to sell lands at Bawnmore, Magners Hill, and Parkmountain, Youghal, to the company for €39.5m.

€30m of that sum was to have been paid by November 2006 and that amount has been paid in accordance with the contract, Mr Justice Kelly heard. However, the balance of the contract — €9.5m — was to have been paid by January last, but remains outstanding.

The Coleman initiated High Court proceedings against Murphy Construction earlier this year and yesterday their counsel, Hugh O’Neill SC, applied to have the case admitted to the Commercial Court with the intention of having it “fast-tracked”.

The application was opposed by Gavin Ralston SC, for the company, who said the case should continue in the High Court as pleadings had closed and no urgency had been demonstrated before this.

Mr Justice Kelly said that, given the pressure on the Commercial Court list and the delay in bringing the application to admit the case to that court, he would refuse to admit it.