Director fails in attempt to stop sale of house

A Dun Laoghaire company director failed yesterday evening in a High Court attempt to stop the sale of a £480,000 house on the…

A Dun Laoghaire company director failed yesterday evening in a High Court attempt to stop the sale of a £480,000 house on the grounds, he alleged, he was being "gazumped" by the seller.

Mr Max Miller told Mr Justice Smith he believed he had made a deal with Ms Louise Pakenham, Pottery Road, Dun Laoghaire, for the purchase of her home, Tanglewood, for £480,000.

He said he had negotiated the price with Ms Pakenham and Mr Martin Whelan, her partner and financial adviser, after the property had been withdrawn from auction at £400,000.

He told the court that after his solicitor had written to Ms Pakenham's solicitors with a £24,000 cheque as a deposit, her solicitors had written back on May 24th stating they would forward contracts for sale as soon as title to the lands was to hand.

READ MORE

Then, yesterday, a letter delivered to him at lunchtime, and enclosing his cheque for £24,000, stated that Ms Pakenham did not intend proceeding with the transaction. All correspondence had been headed up "Subject to Contract - Contract Denied". One of the letters had stated that no contract would exist unless there was a contract in writing.

Mr Miller told Mr Justice Smith that prior to auction he had offered £525,000 for the property. After it had been withdrawn, Mr Whelan informed him there was an offer of £485,000 from another potential purchaser but that he was fearful the other buyer would be exacting in his requirements and delay the closing of sale.

Mr Whelan had told him he had purchased Churchtown House, a former embassy, for £1.5 million and planned to develop five houses in the grounds. He had stressed the purchase of Church town House was in no way dependent on the sale of Tanglewood.

Mr Justice Smith said it appeared Mr Miller entered into a verbal contract with Mr Whelan for the purchase of Tanglewood for £480,000, but before an agreement could be enforceable, there had to be a note of memorandum signed by the vendor, which did not exist in the application before him.

He said that while it would be inappropriate to grant an interim injunction restraining the sale of Tanglewood to another purchaser, that did not prevent Mr Miller from applying for interlocutory relief next week. He felt Ms Pakenham should be put on notice if such action was contemplated.