The High Court has refused an application by two statutory receivers to strike out a claim by TMT Digital Centre Limited and Docmay Limited over the relocation of 94 car-parking spaces at Maynooth Business Campus.
Mr Justice Twomey ruled on 27 November 2020 that the plaintiffs’ case was not “bound to fail” and should proceed to a plenary hearing. The decision did not determine whether the receivers double-allocated the spaces, breached the lease, acted outside their authority or must pay any remedy.
TMT operates a business offering office space and related services. It bought Block B at the campus, and Docmay later acquired the title and related parking rights. A 2015 lease of easements granted the plaintiffs use of 212 spaces. In May 2019, solicitors for the receivers gave notice that 94 surface spaces were being moved to the campus basement car park.
TMT alleges the basement spaces are unusable and that the relocation breached the lease, which it says required reasonable alternative access. It also alleges that the same 94 surface spaces were allocated to Jomaijo Trading Limited as part of its purchase of other campus units. TMT claims the receivers acted outside their authority and in bad faith, and seeks declarations and injunctive relief. Those allegations were not decided in this application.
The receivers denied liability. They relied on lease terms allowing parking locations to be varied, clauses excluding their personal liability, and section 149 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009. They argued that any remedy lay against the developers, for whom they acted as agents, and that TMT should have assessed the basement’s condition.
The judge said the receivers appeared to have a strong case on the contractual and statutory exclusions. But he concluded that the legal and factual issues required careful analysis at trial. He also considered a related dispute about Unit C at the same campus. The High Court in that case had found double allocation of some spaces, but the Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion. The earlier finding was not strong evidence for TMT’s claim, the judge said, but its existence meant the Unit B claim could not be treated as bound to fail at this stage.
The court therefore declined to strike out the proceedings. It asked the parties to discuss outstanding matters and said the case would be listed for mention one week after judgment if final orders were still needed.