The High Court has granted Esso Ireland Limited and Ireland ROC Limited injunctive relief requiring Nine One One Retail Limited to leave 32 service-station premises and remove its equipment. The court dismissed the company’s counterclaim. The judgment does not set out the detailed terms of the injunction.
The dispute concerned hot-food facilities operated by Nine One One under the “On the Run” brand. The arrangements covered 31 service stations under an operating agreement and licences, and a separate concession at the Belmont premises on Sandford Road, Ranelagh, Dublin 6. The operating agreement, extended by a year in May 2012, was due to end on 20 June 2013. The plaintiffs said the arrangements had expired and sought orders to recover the premises.
Nine One One argued that it occupied a tenement and could seek a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980. It also argued that a reasonable, potentially 12-month, notice period should apply and that the plaintiffs had breached a contractual duty to negotiate in good faith. Its counterclaims included historic losses and sums it said should have been spent on advertising.
Justice Brian J. McGovern found that the written agreements did not grant Nine One One exclusive possession, and that the evidence showed it did not have exclusive possession in practice. The food-preparation areas formed part of open-plan garage shop floors; access outside customer opening hours required the plaintiffs’ permission. The judge concluded there was no tenancy and no entitlement to a new tenancy under the 1980 Act.
The judge also held that the agreements expired on 20 June 2013 after the parties failed to agree a further extension. The plaintiffs’ October 2012 letter ending negotiations was sufficient notice that the operating arrangements would not be renewed, the court found. The separate concession agreement’s one-month notice requirement was met by a letter sent on 14 May 2013. The court said an implied notice period might have been arguable if the defendant had remained in occupation without objection, but that was not what happened.
On negotiations, the court held the promise to negotiate in good faith was not sufficiently precise to be enforceable in the way Nine One One argued. It added that the evidence showed serious engagement, with no lack of good faith by the plaintiffs; negotiations ended because the parties could not reach agreement. No damages or specific performance were granted on that claim.
The court rejected the advertising claim, finding no contractual requirement to allocate fees to that purpose. It also held that the loss-making-store clause provided for contemporaneous assessments, not retrospective recovery of historic losses. The judgment records that an interim injunction application had been refused in July 2013; the final ruling followed an expedited hearing.