The High Court awarded James Victory and Yvonne Leavy €150,000 in damages after finding that Galhoy Inns Limited had no established right of way for deliveries through their yard to its P.V.’s nightclub in Longford. The court declined to grant an injunction and said the company could use the passage as an ordinary right of way and emergency fire exit once it paid the award, subject to conditions set out in the judgment.
The dispute concerned an archway from Market Square and a route across the plaintiffs’ yard to property behind it. The court found that an existing “A” to “B” right of way benefited the former McCormack lands, including Storehouse A. It did not extend to P.V.’s licensed premises. The judge also found that a separate route, marked “YY1”, had been purportedly granted without authority and could not be passed on to the defendant.
The judge held that incorporating Storehouse A into the larger nightclub premises did not extend the benefit of the original right of way to the nightclub. The claimed use as a fire exit likewise did not arise from the earlier rights of way. The court also found that the history of deliveries did not establish a prescriptive right: the proceedings began before 20 years of use had elapsed, and some use was by permission or did not occur during the relevant period.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s predecessor, Thomas Kearns, had interfered with their property, including by demolishing a boundary wall and gate, laying services and attaching lights. The judge accepted evidence of trespass and nuisance, and found that the plaintiffs’ delay did not amount to acquiescence or laches. The court did not hold the defendant responsible for trespasses committed by its predecessor, while noting that a defendant may be liable for continuing a nuisance created by another.
The judge chose damages instead of an injunction, citing the effect an injunction could have on the defendant’s business and the plaintiffs’ entitlement to compensation. The award comprised €40,000 for the difference in the property’s value with and without the burden, plus €110,000 as an enhancement reflecting the value of the access to the defendant’s business.
On payment, the defendant could maintain a gate and suitable lighting for emergency access, and the plaintiffs were to receive a key to reach their premises through the archway. The judgment said the plaintiffs retained ownership of the yard, but must not use it in a way that prevents or reduces the defendant’s granted access. The defendant remained responsible for making its own arrangements for smokers and could not use the plaintiffs’ land for that purpose without permission.