McKillop v McMullan
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1979 |
| Date | 01 January 1979 |
| Court | Chancery Division (Northern Ireland) |
Planning permission -Whether condition precedent - Whether contract null and void if planning permission not obtained by completion date - Vendor seeking to avoid contract.
A contract in writing, dated the 15th May, 1974, for the sale of land contained a condition that the vendor should be entitled to a right of way over a road to be constructed by the purchaser on part of the land and that the contract was signed subject to the purchaser obtaining planning permission for the construction of the road. The contract provided that the completion date should be the 17th June, 1974. There was delay in obtaining planning permission for the road and the vendor wrote to the purchaser after the completion date insisting that the contract be performed. In November, 1975 the vendor, without prior warning, returned the deposit and notified the purchaser that he regarded the contract as no longer binding, because the condition relating to planning permission had not been fulfilled. Soon afterwards the purchaser obtained planning permission for the road and sought specific performance of the contract. Held, that the contract relating to planning permission created a condition precedent to the coming into existence of an effective and enforceable contract of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Connor v Coady
...V BUTLER 1900 1 QB 694 ABERFOYLE PLANTATION V CHENG 1960 AC 115 MALONEY V ELF INVESTMENTS LTD 1979 ILRM 253 MCKILLOP & ANOR V MCMULLAN 1979 NI 85 PERRI V COOLANGATTA INVESTMENTS PROPERTY LTD 1982 149 CLR 537 HEALY V HEALY UNREP KENNY 3.12.1973 MAYNARD V GOODE 1926 37 CLR 540 O'MULLANE V R......
-
O'Connor v Coady
...without completion, before the vendor could treat the contract as at an end. 26 In one of the cases cited,McKillop and Anor. v. McMullan ( 1979N.I. 85) it was held that a condition relating to planning permission created a condition precedent (with which I do not agree) but went on to furth......