Judgment: 2015-01-29 · Court archive

High Court orders vacant possession of Clonskeagh House for NAMA receivers

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for possession and an injunction, finding that the 2014 lease to Southlodge Inns had no effect against the mortgagee without its consent.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 109

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Southlodge Inns Limited
  • James O’Shea (Defendant)
  • Michael White (Judge)
  • Seamus O’Shea
What

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for possession and an injunction, finding that the 2014 lease to Southlodge Inns had no effect against the mortgagee without its consent.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Clonskeagh House
  • Clonskeagh
  • Dublin 14
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The dispute concerned leases granted by James O’Shea, the second defendant, to Southlodge Inns, the first defendant. A 2006 mortgage over the property required prior consent in writing for leases. The court found that neither lease had been consented to by NAMA, which held the loan after its transfer in 2010.

The High Court ordered Southlodge Inns Limited to deliver vacant possession of Clonskeagh House in Clonskeagh, Dublin 14, to statutory receivers appointed over the property. It also granted the plaintiffs the reliefs sought in their motion, including an injunction restraining trespass. The judgment does not set out the wording or duration of the injunction.

The motion, issued on 8 May 2014, was heard on 24 October and 14 November that year. Judgment was delivered on 29 January 2015 by Mr Justice Michael White.

The dispute concerned leases granted by James O’Shea, the second defendant, to Southlodge Inns, the first defendant. A 2006 mortgage over the property required prior consent in writing for leases. The court found that neither lease had been consented to by NAMA, which held the loan after its transfer in 2010.

The lease at issue was granted on 8 January 2014 for a two-year term beginning 21 July 2013, at annual rent of €25,000. The court held that the first defendant’s rights as beneficiary of that lease could not override the mortgagee’s rights in the absence of consent. It also rejected the argument that NAMA’s engagement with Mr O’Shea amounted to an estoppel, finding that the correspondence consistently stated that consent had not been given.

The court recorded that receivers were appointed on 10 April 2014. They attended the premises on 17 and 30 April seeking possession, but Southlodge Inns refused to give it up. In affidavits, the company’s director, Seamus O’Shea, argued that the lender’s conduct and correspondence showed acceptance of the lease and a transfer of the liquor licence. He also said the company had made weekly payments to NAMA. The judgment records that NAMA refunded those payments after the receivers’ appointment.

In weighing the injunction application, the judge said the merits favoured the plaintiffs, the defendants could not compensate them by damages if the plaintiffs later succeeded, and the balance of convenience also favoured the plaintiffs. The ruling granted relief on the motion; it does not determine the outcome of any final trial of the underlying proceedings.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review