The High Court has upheld a Circuit Court decision granting possession of the entire property at 7 Cecil Street, Limerick, to the plaintiffs. The appeal concerned a claim for a new tenancy after two leases expired in June 2004. The court also awarded the plaintiffs the costs of the proceedings.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Clark on 18 February 2009, confirmed the Circuit Court’s findings. The plaintiffs are successors in title to the original lessors; the defendant is successor in title to the original tenant and had occupied the property for more than 29 years.
The two leases, both subject to tenant repair covenants, covered parts of the property and expired on 30 June 2004. The plaintiffs served civil bills for overholding in July and August 2005. The defendant gave notice that she intended to seek relief and claimed a right to a new tenancy.
The plaintiffs’ evidence, supported by engineering, quantity surveying and valuation evidence and photographs, described the four-storey Georgian residence and its basement as being in ruinous condition. The judge found the property dangerous and unfit for habitation. Estimates put the cost of making it liveable at about €240,000 and restoring it to its former style at about €290,000. Evidence was that it could not be rented in its existing state.
The defendant told the court she had moved into the house in 1969 to care for her uncle, the original tenant, and later raised her children there. She said it had once been in good order and that she and her family believed they could buy out the freehold for a small sum. The judgment records that the property was not covered by ground rent legislation and that tenants had no statutory right to buy the freehold. Her sons had begun repair work, but the judge found the defendant could not afford the necessary repairs or market rent.
The plaintiffs relied on section 17(1)(a)(v) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980, arguing there were good and sufficient reasons to refuse a new tenancy. The judge found that the tenants had failed to keep the premises in good repair and were unable to do so. She confirmed the Circuit Court decision and ordered recovery of possession under civil bill records 2005/00543 and 2005/00542, with costs.