The Court of Appeal has dismissed George Magan’s appeal against a High Court ruling concerning his former tenancy of Castletown House and Estate in Co Kilkenny. It found that the High Court trial had been regularly conducted despite Magan’s absence, and that his proposed defences did not have a real prospect of success warranting a new hearing.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s September 2019 decision on five issues: whether Magan could claim a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 based on business use; whether the tenancy had been validly terminated; and whether he had any right to relief against forfeiture or another basis to remain in occupation.
The Court of Appeal accepted that cultural and other visits to the estate took place, and that some activities described in evidence could fall within the Act’s definition of “business”. But it agreed with the High Court that, considered as a whole, those activities were a minor adjunct to the residential use set out in the 2010 letting agreement. That agreement restricted use to a residence for Magan and his dependants. The court said that term was a major obstacle to showing the business use was bona fide, as the Act required.
The court also concluded that the tenancy had been validly ended. It found no real prospect of success in Magan’s argument that the first termination notice, which cited the landlord’s intention to sell, was invalid or displaced by a later notice based on unpaid rent. The court said the two notices relied on separate grounds. It further held that the residential tenancy had ended under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, so relief against forfeiture was unavailable. The judgment noted that Magan had referred the later notice to the Residential Tenancies Board; it did not determine that referral.
Magan argued that he had been unable to attend the September 2019 High Court hearing for medical reasons and that court staff did not pass on emails sent by his son shortly before the hearing. The Court of Appeal found that Magan knew the hearing date but that no adjournment application was properly before the High Court. It said the plaintiff had not been told of the intended application or given the medical reports, despite directions requiring medical evidence to be shared. The court therefore found no procedural unfairness and held that the trial judge had been entitled to proceed. The High Court had heard the plaintiff’s witnesses and considered witness statements filed for Magan; judgment was not given in default.
The Court of Appeal found no other legal basis for Magan to remain in occupation and declined to remit any of the five issues for a new trial. It dismissed the appeal and proposed that the plaintiff receive its appeal costs, subject to either party seeking a different order within 21 days of electronic delivery of the judgment.