Court rules builder not entitled to €2m for lobbying councillors

The High Court has ruled that a builder is not entitled to the €2m he claimed a landowner owed him for the work he did to secure planning permission for a €44m housing development, including long hours lobbying Dublin councillors.

In a judgment, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy said he was not satisfied that there was a "concluded agreement concerning the development" between builder Patrick Cassidy and the landowner in question Mrs Margret Heneghan.

However the judge accepted that Mr Cassidy had spent some 200 hours lobbying Dublin County Councillors during the 1990s in order to gain their support for the development.

Mr Cassidy, Beaufield Lawns, Maynooth, Kildare, claimed the money was due arising out of a 1991 deal which involved him spending months lobbying councillors to successfully obtain the rezoning and later planning permission for a 19-acre site at Turvey, Donabate, Dublin, for 95 houses.

The houses built on the land, in phases, were later sold for between, €450,000-€600,000.

Mr Cassidy brought proceedings against Mrs Heneghan, Beaverstown, Donabate. She had denied that there was any agreement between the parties.

However, Mr Cassidy claimed she and her family failed to abide by agreements he made with her late husband, John Heneghan, who worked as a site foreman with a building company at the time.

Mr Cassidy claimed he spent long hours lobbying many of the 72 Dublin county councillors and officials in 1993 to secure rezoning.

These included meetings with some councillors in Conway's pub near the council's O'Connell Street offices at which, Mr Cassidy said, he would buy one or two drinks for those councillors present.

Mr Cassidy, who ran a building company in England and described himself as a planning consultant, claims that between 1991 and 1996 he spent thousands in expenses.

This included flying back and forth from England to attend council meetings and spending IR£1,200 (€1,524) on "entertainment, food and beverages" for councillors.

He claimed he had a written agreement that Mr Heneghan would pay him (Cassidy) €266,000 on a "no foal, no fee" basis once permission was obtained and he would also get four housing sites in the development worth €1.6m.

He also says it was agreed that he (Cassidy) would be given the contract for the development's road, drainage and other infrastructural works, worth around €279,000 at the time.

After Mr Heneghan died in 1996, and once planning permission was obtained, Mrs Heneghan refused to honour the agreement he made with her husband, he claimed.

In his judgment Mr Justice Murphy said that he was not satisfied that there was a “concluded agreement in the terms pleaded” between Mr Cassidy and the late Mr Heneghan.

The Judge said that there was no evidence that the late Mr Heneghan and Mr Cassidy had acted together in a joint venture or that Mr Heneghan was responsible for anyone else's fees.

The Judge also said that on the evidence before him there was no concluded agreement for the four sites in the development, which Mr Cassidy claimed he was to get.

The Judge further held that Mr Cassidy was not entitled to the payment of fees following the granting of planning permission in 1996 for the Turvey development.

There was no binding agreement in relation to the contract for the development of the infrastructure, the Judge said however Mr Cassidy was entitled to be paid for the work he did on a quantum meruit (reasonable value of services) basis.

The court also accepted that Mr Cassidy had lobbied councillors to gain their support, but did not accept that he was the development’s project manager.

The Judge said that Mr Cassidy’s involvement in the matter was not as extensive or intensive as had claimed. The Judge said that when everything was taken into account he Mr Cassidy’s involvement should be limited to 200 hours lobbying.