"The Celtic Tiger Ate My Homework" – The Recession Defence

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
The Behan* case arose against a history of family disputes between the Behan siblings regarding their late mother’s will.
Ireland Real Estate and Construction

Facts

The Behan* case arose against a history of family disputes between the Behan siblings regarding their late mother's will.  This dispute concerned a settlement agreement between the siblings signed in 2006, which included the lease of a quarry agreed between the siblings.  The tenant had agreed to lease a quarry from the landlords for an initial annual rent of more than €400,000.  When the tenant defaulted on the rent payments, the landlords brought an application for judgment for the arrears of rent.

The ambitious defence of mistake

In its defence, the tenant argued that the lease was negotiated when the construction industry was "booming" and when there was a huge demand for infill facilities provided by quarries.  The tenant pointed to the fact that, shortly after the lease was entered into, the construction industry collapsed rendering the rent levels which had been agreed completely unrealistic.  The tenant sought to set aside the lease based on a shared mistake that: (1) the market for infill space would not collapse; and (2) there would be a relationship between the income generated from the quarry (as an infill facility) and the rent to be paid.

The Judge's decision - the economic downturn could not be a defence. 

The Judge said that he did not believe that there was any common mistake as to any fact existing at the time the lease was executed.  The Judge noted that: "it is true that the parties may have been disappointed and in the case of the defendants in particular, seriously disappointed by the downturn in the Irish economy and in particular in the construction industry. However, I cannot conceive how that could provide a basis for setting aside an agreement that both parties entered into with advice".

The Judge concluded that "there is simply no credible basis for suggesting that parties can be relieved of obligations freely entered into because an economy has experienced a downturn, even one as severe as would fit the economy of this State". 

*Noeleen Behan and Michael Henretty v Behan Land Restoration Limited and John Behan

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More