The Court of Appeal has dismissed Automation Transport Limited’s appeal against an order requiring it to give up the Promenade Road premises in Dublin Port to Dublin Port Company (DPC). The court upheld the High Court’s conclusion that a 2012 deed effectively renounced the tenant’s right to seek a new tenancy, despite errors in the document.
The joint judgment of Mr Justice Maurice Collins and Mr Justice Robert Haughton, delivered on 31 January 2024, affirms the High Court order. By the time of the appeal, Automation Transport had left the premises and no longer sought possession or a new tenancy. It continued to seek damages on its counterclaim.
The lease, dated 11 February 2013, was for 20 years but allowed either party to end it at specified points. DPC served a break notice in March 2017 requiring the company to leave by 10 February 2018. Automation Transport did not leave by that date, and DPC brought proceedings for possession.
The dispute centred on a deed signed on the company’s behalf on 12 November 2012. It referred to a one-year office tenancy and to provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1994, although the intended lease covered industrial premises for a 20-year term. The High Court treated those references as drafting errors and read the deed as referring to the Promenade Road lease and the applicable statutory renunciation provisions.
The Court of Appeal said the High Court judge had evidence to find that a draft of the Promenade Road lease was attached to the deed when it was signed. It also relied on the fact that this was the only lease Automation Transport had taken for premises in Dublin Port. Against that background, the appellate court agreed that the deed’s errors could be corrected through interpretation and that the renunciation was effective. It rejected the company’s appeal, including its challenges concerning independent legal advice.
DPC had also cross-appealed the High Court’s alternative finding that a lease clause requiring Automation Transport to execute a renunciation was void under the 1980 Act. The Court of Appeal did not decide that issue: it said the cross-appeal fell away after dismissing the tenant’s appeal and expressed no concluded view on the clause or DPC’s separate estoppel argument. It affirmed the High Court order and scheduled a short hearing on costs.