The High Court has refused an application by Muhammad Sabir Hafeez for interim orders that would have restored him to the Chicken Hut takeaway premises at 26 Oliver Plunkett Street, Mullingar, after CPM Consulting Limited took possession in September 2020.
In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2020, Mr Justice David Keane said the application sought mandatory relief, including permission to re-enter and resume business, delivery of vacant possession and keys, and an order against interference with the business. The court applied the requirement that Mr Hafeez show a strong case likely to succeed at trial.
CPM had re-entered the premises on 14 September, asserting that the lease was forfeited because rent was overdue. Mr Hafeez accepted that rent had been more than seven days in arrears at the time. He argued that the forfeiture was invalid without a statutory notice, that CPM had waived forfeiture by accepting rent payments, or that he should receive equitable relief from forfeiture.
The judge concluded that Mr Hafeez had not shown a strong case on any of those grounds. He noted that the lease allowed re-entry for rent arrears and that the relevant law did not require a statutory notice for forfeiture for non-payment of rent. The court also considered it strongly arguable that re-entry was a final exercise of the forfeiture right, that rent arrears may have continued, and that acceptance of payments did not establish waiver in the absence of written notice of waiver.
The evidence about rent, use of the premises, insurance, investment in the restaurant and the relationship between Mr Hafeez and the company trading as Chicken Hut was disputed. The judge said those matters were not finally determined on the injunction application and could be addressed at trial. He also declined to treat an interlocutory order granting relief against forfeiture as appropriate; in any event, he said the evidence and arguments did not warrant one.
Although the judge was not satisfied that damages would adequately compensate Mr Hafeez if he later succeeded, he was even less satisfied that damages would adequately remedy the loss CPM might suffer if injunctions were granted and CPM succeeded at trial. He found the balance of justice against interim relief and refused the five injunctions sought. The court did not finally decide the parties’ underlying claims. It directed them to seek agreement on costs and other matters arising from the judgment, with written submissions due within 14 days if they could not agree.