Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Feb 2001

Vol. 530 No. 6

Written Answers. - Sale of Property.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

183 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Finance if, further to his reply to Questions Nos. 464 and 488 of 30 January 2001, he has satisfied himself that the Commissioners of Public Works did not in any way impede the closure of a sale; the number of requests the purchaser made to close the sale since 1995; the response to each request; the number of requests made by the commission to the purchaser regarding the closure of sale; when the commission first decided to offer the property for sale on the open market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4477/01]

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

This cases relates to the sale of a site in Shankill. The Commissioners of Public Works offered a site for sale by public auction on 24 March 1994. The bid from the prospective purchaser was accepted and the contract was signed by him. The closing date was set for 17 June 1994, but he failed to close on the day. Despite repeated requests to close issued from the office of the Chief State Solicitor, in particular by a completion notice dated 7 July 1994, and by further letters dated 17 July 1994, 5 August 1994 and 18 August 1994, the contract was not completed by him.

As matters had not progressed, the commissioners issued a plenary summons in October 1994 against him. The case was heard in the High Court in June 1996. The proceedings commenced as specific performance proceedings to enforce the sale of the site. As the prospective purchaser did not seek specific performance in his defence, leave was granted by the court to the commissioners to amend their statement of claim to seek in lieu of specific performance a declaration that the sale agreement was being rescinded and sale deposit forfeited.

In his amended defence the prospective purchaser did not seek specific performance to enforce the sale. His defence contains an admission to the recession of the agreement but a claim to entitlement to return of the deposit. The deposit is the only issue now outstanding in this case and a response has not been received to the offer already made by the commissioners.

Following the issue of court proceedings some correspondence took place during 1995 with the prospective purchaser. The particular details supplied by the Deputy in his question relate to a letter to the purchaser issued by the office of the Chief State Solicitor on 7 March 1995 which conveyed the intention of the commissioners to forfeit the deposit under the conditions of the contract and put the site up for resale.

In response to the letter the prospective pur chaser requested a meeting which took place at the office of the Chief State Solicitor on 2 June 1995. At the meeting he indicated his intention to close the sale within three to four weeks. He stated that if that was not acceptable he was prepared to accept a refund on his deposit. It was pointed out to him that the delay in closing the sale had attracted interest and other costs which would have to be paid. He then took the position that if he was to close the sale, interest would have to be waived, or a substantial reduction negotiated. This arrangement was not acceptable to the commissioners.

A further proposal in relation to sale of the site was received from the prospective purchaser in June 1995 indicating his willingness to close the sale at a discounted price. That proposal was also not considered acceptable.

A number of requests to close the sale were received since 1996. The records show that two requests were received during 1996 from the legal representatives of the prospective purchaser. The response in both cases was that the amounts offered were unacceptable having regard to the amount of interest and costs accrued and the increased value of the property. A further request to close was made in August 1997 at a meeting at the offices of the Chief State Solicitor. An offer to close at that stage was not considered appropriate as the case was ready for hearing in the Circuit Court to deal with the matter of the deposit.

I am satisfied that the Commissioners of Public Works did not in any way impede closure of a sale. In dealing with this matter the commissioners from the outset followed the advice of the office of the Chief State Solicitor. The prospective purchaser was given every opportunity to complete the transaction and failed to do so.