The High Court did not order the occupier of a Clifden guesthouse to leave after she gave undertakings addressing fire safety, planning and other concerns raised by the owner. The interim application was resolved on agreed undertakings and directions to move the case towards trial; the court granted both sides liberty to apply if issues arose.
Maldua Limited sought interim injunctions requiring Naomi Walton to vacate the property on Galway Road and barring her from returning pending trial. The company said she had changed its use from a guesthouse to refugee accommodation, carried out extensive unauthorised alterations and failed to maintain required planning and fire safety compliance. It also alleged that the works caused a fire. Walton accepted that the property was being used to accommodate Ukrainian refugees but disputed the owner’s account of the property’s condition and the cause of the fire. She said repairs were needed, the alterations could be reversed, and safety work and certification had been completed.
Justice Kennedy said the company had made a strong case, for the purposes of the interim application, that the signed agreement was a licence and that Walton breached its terms. The court pointed to the agreement’s restrictions on use and alterations, and said permission should clearly have been sought for many of the works whether the agreement was ultimately found to be a licence or a lease.
The judge did not finally decide the legal character of the agreement or whether it had been terminated. He said Walton had tenable arguments that it was a tenancy, including on exclusive possession, and that the evidence and legal issues required assessment at trial. If the agreement was a tenancy, the court was not satisfied on the disputed evidence that the owner had shown a strong case of repudiation. The court also found no basis on the evidence before it to conclude that the parties had reached a binding purchase agreement or that Walton had a binding option to buy the property.
The cause of the fire was also left unresolved. The judge placed limited reliance on the parties’ engineers’ reports on that question, finding them insufficient to support a safe conclusion at this stage. He said the owner had raised serious concerns about planning and regulatory compliance, particularly fire safety, while noting that the more recent report and some documents from Walton addressed safety work.
The court considered immediate eviction a draconian step, given that Walton’s family and 36 refugees were then staying at the property. The parties agreed a set of undertakings covering the concerns raised, with the court deciding one aspect of their terms, and agreed directions intended to progress the case rapidly to discovery. The judgment records that Walton’s refugee accommodation contract was due to expire in August; any renewal, unless agreed by the owner, would need to be subject to the litigation’s outcome.