The High Court ruled that John Reynolds could claim damages for breach of a lease agreement after finding that the defendants’ conduct entitled him to treat it as ended. The judgment addressed the principle and categories of loss, but did not state a final damages total or make a quantified award in the text provided.
Mr Justice Cregan delivered the judgment on 29 July 2015, following an earlier judgment on 30 June. That earlier decision had found that the defendants were not entitled to specific performance, and that Reynolds was entitled to damages, a declaration of breach and rescission of the agreement. The court adjourned the case for submissions on damages.
The defendants argued that rescission meant the contract was void from the outset, preventing a claim for breach of contract damages. The judge rejected that argument. He distinguished setting aside a contract from its formation from ending a contract because of a later breach. In this case, he said, the agreement had existed, had been breached and could be treated as ended from the date of judgment. The court order recording the parties’ agreement of 5 March 2014 remained in force.
The judge also concluded that the defendants’ actions amounted to an abuse of process. He said this could provide an alternative basis for damages for foreseeable losses, including rent, rates and service charges that Reynolds could not obtain while the conduct continued.
The court excluded damages for losses before 5 March 2014, holding that any such claim had been compromised by the agreement made that day. It also rejected the €185,000 security-deposit claim because the deposit would have been refundable to the lessee at the end of the lease. And it ruled that damages could not include rent for the agreement’s 18-and-a-half-week rent-free period.
The judge said Reynolds was entitled to damages reflecting lost rent, service charges, insurance and rates from 26 March 2014 to 21 July 2015, with rent damages excluding the rent-free period. The judgment’s conclusion was that damages were due for those amounts; the supplied text gives no final figures for the sums allowed.