The High Court has refused Dunnes Stores’ application for an interim injunction to prevent changes to shopping-centre services and delivery access at Ashleaf Shopping Centre in Crumlin, County Dublin. Mr Justice Max Barrett held that Dunnes had not shown a strong case that it was likely to succeed at trial, the threshold the court applied to the mandatory relief sought.
The application arose from a dispute involving Dunnes Stores, related company Almonte, and receiver Paul McCann over service charges, car-park rights and the services and access available at the centre. Dunnes sought orders preserving service hours and service-yard access while its substantive proceedings continued. Those proceedings also seek declarations and other relief concerning occupation of the car park, alleged rent and set-off rights, and the receiver’s obligations under the anchor-unit lease. Those claims were not determined by this application.
The receiver had told Dunnes in May 2017 that it owed €1,969,580.38 in service-charge arrears and that services and service-yard access would be restricted from 8 June. Dunnes disputes that it owes the charges, asserting that its position is affected by a claimed set-off arrangement connected with the car park. The receiver disputes Dunnes’ claims. Dunnes argued that reduced hours and delivery access would disrupt trading and deliveries and cause losses; these were its asserted concerns, not findings by the court.
The judge found that the injunctions, despite being framed as preventing changes, would in substance require the receiver to continue providing services and access. He therefore treated them as mandatory injunctions, for which Dunnes had to establish a strong case of likely success.
The court identified several obstacles. It noted that Gary Smith’s English bankruptcy trustee had disclaimed the car-park occupational lease in 2015, and that Dunnes had not challenged the disclaimer in England; the Irish courts could not invalidate an act in an English bankruptcy. The judge also considered the asserted contractual set-off clause, concluding that it either did not bind the receiver or raised a difficulty under the pari passu rule in bankruptcy. He found no mutuality for a general set-off between debts allegedly owed by Smith to Almonte and service charges payable by Dunnes to the receiver. The court also found that the arguments based on trespass or a possible new tenancy did not establish the required strong case for set-off.
Because Dunnes failed to meet that threshold, the court refused the injunction and did not go on to assess whether damages would be adequate or weigh the balance of convenience. The ruling decided the interim application only; it did not resolve the substantive proceedings.