High Court: Property developer awarded €10k for harassment and intimidation from farmer

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

The Court heard that the farmers from whom he bought 15 acres of land for €1.3 million in 2005, employed a debt recovery agency to recover a further €350k, and that the individuals concerned persistently intimidated the property developer and his family over a three-month period.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said that the farmers’ frustration may have been understandable, but it was clear that the intimidating behaviour continued even after the involvement of the Gardaí.

Background

The plaintiffs, Mr Tom O’Driscoll and Mr Seamus Dunne, were property developers and Mr Dunne in addition had an electrical wholesale business in Kilkenny.

The defendants, Mr Larry McDonald, Mrs Deirdre McDonald and Mr Barney McDonald were farmers who owned a house and agricultural lands at Ballyroan, County Laois, part of which were rezoned for development purposes.

By contract for sale in October 2005, the plaintiffs agreed to acquire fifteen acres of land from the defendants for €1.3 million. Mr McDonald was retaining three sites on the lands and as part of the deal, and it was agreed that the plaintiffs would build three houses on these sites.

Rather than develop the lands themselves, the plaintiffs entered negotiations to sell them on to a building development company called Rolan Homes Ltd. The plaintiffs successfully concluded an agreement with Rolan in May 2006 and sold the lands for €3 million – however this sale eventually fell through, allegedly due to the defendants’ breach of contract.

The plaintiffs jointly claimed damages against the defendants for breach of the caretaker’s agreements; failure to vacate the properties in breach of those agreements; and failure to maintain the dwelling house so that it was uninhabitable.

Breach of Contract

The plaintiffs submitted that because of the breach of contract, they had lost the benefit of the contract with Rolan which resulted in a loss to them of €3 million together with the value of the dwelling house and agricultural lands they would have retained in addition.

In evidence it was suggested that Rolan pulled out of the deal because the plaintiffs couldn’t get possession of the property from the defendants, however Justice Noonan found that this was not consistent with documents which were completely silent regarding any involvement of Rolan post November 2006, even though the caretaker’s agreement, which gave the McDonalds a right to occupy the property for at least six months, was only entered into during that month.

The plaintiffs maintained that there continued to be verbal discussions and contacts with Rolan throughout this period, that Rolan pulled out of the arrangement in October 2007, and that this was directly consequent upon the fact that the defendants had failed to vacate in May 2007.

Justice Noonan believed this was directly contradictory to all the surrounding circumstances – especially since there was not “a single letter from the plaintiffs or their solicitors demanding possession as a matter of extreme urgency”.

Moreover, the caretaker’s agreement in relation to the lands which included the 8.8 acres being sold to Rolan required two months’ notice in writing to be served upon the defendants before they were obliged to surrender possession – and there was no evidence before the court that such notice was ever served.

Furthermore, in November 2007, the plaintiffs agreed to pay the defendants a sum of €350,000 to buy out their obligation to build the three houses contained in the original contract. If Rolan had pulled out of the deal as suggested in October, one would have expected the plaintiffs to be taking legal steps to recover the huge losses they had suffered because of the defendant’s breach of contract.

In all the circumstances, Justice Noonan was satisfied therefore that the defendants remained in occupation of the property on an agreed basis after the expiry of the initial six-month period. The claim for €3 million lacked credibility.

Finding that the claim should fail, Justice Noonan was not satisfied that if any breach of contract did occur, that it resulted in any actual loss to the plaintiffs.

Harassment and intimidation

Mr Dunne made a separate claim in relation to the harassment and intimation he suffered at the hands of a debt recovery agency employed by the defendants. His evidence was that individuals intimidated him and his family at their home on five occasions approximately, and visited his business on two or three times over three-month period.

Justice Noonan held that it was clear that this behaviour by Mr McDonald was entirely unacceptable and amounted to intimidation. The unauthorised and unlawful visits to Mr Dunne’s home and business premises clearly constituted a trespass, and further the watching and besetting of his premises by the individuals concerned was also unlawful.

It was clearly designed to intimidate and coerce Mr Dunne in relation to the outstanding debt, which necessitated the involvement of the Gardaí.

Even after the Gardaí were involved and had interviewed the defendants, the intimidating behaviour persisted and the defendants only agreed reluctantly to withdraw the debt recovery agency for one week.

Whilst one might conceivably understand how Mr McDonald out of a sense of frustration and financial necessity felt he was within his rights to engage this debt recovery agency, after he had been interviewed and warned by the Gardaí he could no longer have been under any misapprehension but despite that he persisted.

Justice Noonan was satisfied that Mr Dunne’s evidence was entirely uncontradicted, and assessed general damages in favour of Mr Dunne in the sum of €10,000.