The High Court has affirmed a Circuit Court order allowing Charles and Raymond Crowley to acquire the fee simple of a home at 1b “Anneville”, Coolgarten Park, Magazine Road, Cork.
Mr Justice Nolan delivered the judgment on 10 December 2024, dismissing Barry Sheehan’s appeal. The dispute concerned whether a restriction in ground-rent legislation prevented the Crowleys from buying the freehold because their lease was a sublease.
The Crowleys hold a 150-year lease dating from 1940, with an annual rent of £3. It required a dwelling house to be built within 12 months at a cost of at least £400. A cottage was subsequently built. In May 2022, they applied under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 to acquire the fee simple and intermediate interests. The parties agreed they met the Act’s other relevant eligibility requirements.
Sheehan, who owns an adjacent property, argued that the Crowleys’ lease was a sublease granted by a lessee who did not qualify under the Act. He said the 1893 head lease contained no building covenant, so a restriction introduced by a 2006 amendment barred the Crowleys from acquiring the freehold. He relied on the principle that a tenant should not have a better title than a landlord.
The Crowleys argued that the amendment addressed a different problem: commercial arrangements in which a tenant could grant a qualifying lease to another party to obtain the freehold, despite the superior landlord’s position. They said applying the restriction to their home would extend it beyond that purpose.
Justice Nolan found that the amendment was directed at such commercial developments, including supermarket leases, and was not intended to exclude tenants whose original leases lacked building covenants. He said Sheehan’s proposed reading would be absurd or fail to reflect the Oireachtas’s intention, and considered the statutory interpretation provisions of the Interpretation Act 2005. He also noted the value of the Crowleys’ sublease was substantially connected to the building funded by their predecessors in title.
The High Court therefore held that the lease was not a non-qualifying lease for the purpose argued by Sheehan, and that the Crowleys did not fall within the restriction in section 16(2)(f). It affirmed the Circuit Court order. The judgment does not set out a separate calculation of the purchase price or further implementation steps.