A Cork broadcaster won an action in the Cork Circuit Civil Court yesterday to purchase a house. He had taken the action after the developers had tried to get out of the deal and had informed him that they were returning his £5,000 deposit on the £185,000 dwelling at Reeves Wood, Douglas, Cork.
Mr Neil Prenderville and his wife, Paula, of Kiltegan Park, Rochestown Road, challenged the decision by Gable Holdings Ltd and Clark Homes Ltd not to sell them the house on which they had paid the deposit.
They had decided to purchase a house in Reeves Wood as Mrs Prenderville's mother intended living with them and they needed a bigger house. They first saw the house when it was at an advanced stage of construction.
They discussed the proposed purchase with Mr Kevin O'Sullivan, of O'Sullivan Moore Auctioneers, who was the selling agent for the development.
He agreed that they would pay a deposit of £5,000. They decided to proceed and went to Mr O'Sullivan's office and paid the deposit. They were given a receipt.
They arranged mortgage finance, and Mrs Prenderville arranged to take out additional life cover.
Mrs Prenderville requested the builder's foreman to make some changes in the house and engaged a firm of interior designers to advise on colour schemes, furnishings etc. She purchased bathroom furniture, a fireplace and other furniture for the house. She also selected tiles and carpeting.
They agreed with Mr O'Sullivan that he would have the sole agency in the sale of their house at Kiltegan Park. He advertised the property for sale.
Meanwhile, the defendants' solicitors had sent on draft contract documents with supporting title and other ancillary documentation to the plaintiffs' solicitor.
The plaintiffs did not respond to this letter, and a month later a letter from the defendants' solicitor noted they had received no response to their letter and that "our clients are not proceeding with this matter and have made arrangements for the refund of your clients' booking deposit".
The plaintiffs' solicitors responded by alleging among other things that there was a mutually binding agreement as evidenced by part-performance and called on the defendants to reinstate and honour the agreement.
In court yesterday Judge John Buckley held that the Prendervilles had an oral contract for the sale of the house. The plaintiffs, he said, took a number of steps following the payment of the £5,000.
Mr O'Sullivan was aware of a number of these steps. He knew Mrs Prenderville was in touch with the builder's foreman arranging for changes to be made in the house. He had started to market their house by means of brochures and advertising.
"Some emphasis was put in cross-examination on the fact that sums of money paid in respect of these goods and services were refunded", the judge said.
"I do not believe that the fact that some refunds were available when the goods were no longer immediately required prevents these arrangements from being regarded as acts of part-performance.
"I find that all of these steps taken by the plaintiffs were acts of part-performance related to an oral agreement which the plaintiffs believed they had reached with the defendants to purchase No 8 Reeves Wood, following the payment of the £5,000 deposit."
He ordered completion of the sale for the agreed sum of £185,000 and made the decree against Gable Holdings and Clark Homes. He struck out proceedings against O'Sullivan Moore.
Mr Tom Creed, defending, applied for a stay as his clients were appealing the decision, but this was refused by the judge.