The Circuit Court rejected a bid by four landlords to make Crown Paints Ireland Limited pay the difference between its former lease rent and market rent while it occupied their Coolock premises after the lease expired. The court found no legal basis to impose a retrospective new tenancy after the company withdrew its claim for one.
Judge John O’Connor delivered the judgment on 23 July 2024. The dispute concerned premises on Malahide Road, Coolock, held by Crown Paints under a 10-year lease that expired on 12 August 2018. The company stayed in occupation and served notice in August 2018 claiming a right to a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980. The parties could not agree terms, and the landlords brought proceedings seeking the court’s determination.
In November 2022, Crown Paints told the landlords it was withdrawing its claim. It left the premises on 31 December 2022 and had continued paying the rent set under the expired lease during its occupation. The landlords then sought a declaration that the company was liable for the difference between that rent and market rent for the period from the lease’s expiry to its departure.
The landlords argued that the court could use the Act’s provisions on new tenancies and rent adjustments, or the doctrine of estoppel, to require payment of the difference. They said the tenant had benefited from remaining in occupation while its claim was pending and should not be able to withdraw without paying market rent. Crown Paints argued that the Act did not require a tenant to take a new tenancy and that adjustments under the relevant provision depended on a new tenancy being granted. It also disputed that there was evidence of abuse of the process or a promise to pay higher rent.
The judge held that the Act gave a tenant a right to a new tenancy, not an obligation to accept one. Once Crown Paints decided not to proceed and informed the landlords, there was no tenancy left for the court to fix. The judge said the court could intervene if a tenant misused the statutory process, for example by deliberately delaying proceedings to disadvantage a landlord, but found no evidence that Crown Paints had done so.
The court also rejected the proposed retrospective tenancy and the estoppel argument. It found no promise or conduct that justified imposing an obligation to pay market rent, particularly given the parties’ failure to agree the new tenancy’s terms. The court preferred the company’s arguments and said it would hear the parties on costs on a date to be agreed. The judgment did not determine any costs award.