The Court of Appeal has allowed a former tenant of a Sligo town premises to pursue limited damages claims against Ulster Bank (Ireland) Limited, while upholding the dismissal of several other claims.
The appeal concerned a High Court order that dismissed most of Michael Hemani’s claims but allowed him to pursue direct economic loss allegedly caused by the bank’s failure to maintain the property. The High Court had also directed him to file an amended statement of claim confined to that issue.
Hemani had occupied part of a building at 52 O’Connell Street under an oral tenancy and used it for a printing business. The bank disputed his account of access for repairs. Earlier proceedings determined the lease terms and the parties’ repair responsibilities. In 2015, the High Court fixed the rent and ordered compensation for the period Hemani was out of possession during works. It also awarded €10,500 for a replacement camera and related delay and machinery expenses, to be credited against rent.
The Court of Appeal said those prior orders remained binding. Hemani could not reopen matters already determined, including the earlier assessment of damage to equipment and compensation connected with the repair works. The court also upheld the striking out of claims for mental distress, depression and generalised reputational damage, finding no applicable exception to the general rule limiting such damages for breach of contract.
However, the appeal court concluded that claims for damages for breach of express or implied covenants, including the covenants to repair and for quiet enjoyment, had not been adjudicated in the earlier proceedings. It said it would be excessive and unfair to bar those claims under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. They may be pursued alongside the permitted direct economic-loss claim, but the covenant claims must be confined to the period before 7 January 2015, the date previously set for Hemani to resume possession.
The court directed Hemani to serve an amended statement of claim within 28 days after the order was perfected. It must set out the permitted grounds, comply with court rules and not be unduly long. The appeal succeeded only to that limited extent; all other grounds were dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not determine the merits or amount of the remaining damages claims.