Judgment: 2023-05-17 · Court archive

Appeal court grants judgment for Balbriggan landlords over unpaid rent

The Court of Appeal rejected the tenants’ proposed set-off and rent-abatement defences, but left the landlords’ possession application and part of their claim against the guarantor for further hearing.

Court of Appeal · [2023] IECA 119

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Edgeform Metals Limited
  • Aidan Boylan (Defendant)
  • Brian Egerton
  • Christopher Tighe
What

The Court of Appeal rejected the tenants’ proposed set-off and rent-abatement defences, but left the landlords’ possession application and part of their claim against the guarantor for further hearing.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Balbriggan Business Park
  • Balbriggan
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 30 September 2014; 8 July 2021

    The court entered judgment jointly against the company and Boylan for €32,199.77, representing rent arrears and VAT up to the lease’s expiry on 30 September 2014. It waived interest on that part of the claim because of a calculation error. It separately entered judgment against the company alone for €177,503.52, covering the balance of the landlords’ claim, including rent, VAT and interest up to 8 July 2021.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The appeal concerned a High Court decision that had refused the landlords’ application for summary judgment and sent the case for a full hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the company and its guarantor had not shown a credible defence to the rent claim on the evidence before it.

The Court of Appeal has entered judgment for two landlords over rent arrears at Units 1 and 2 in Balbriggan Business Park, rejecting the tenants’ proposed defences based on alleged debts and an agreement to reduce the rent.

The appeal concerned a High Court decision that had refused the landlords’ application for summary judgment and sent the case for a full hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the company and its guarantor had not shown a credible defence to the rent claim on the evidence before it.

The dispute arose after Brian Egerton sold his shares in Edgeform Metals Limited to Waaigeest Ltd in 2010 and leased the company commercial premises in Balbriggan. A written lease set rent at €20,000 a year, excluding VAT. The company later also occupied an adjoining unit. After paying rent in full until September 2012, it fell into arrears and, from May 2013, paid €1,000 a month including VAT.

The company’s director, Aidan Boylan, argued that Egerton had guaranteed certain debts owed to the company, which could be set off against rent. The appeal court found that account inconsistent with the written sale and loan documents and a later letter from Egerton. It also said any alleged guarantee would not create a debt owed to the company by the landlord that could be set off against rent, and that a claim against Egerton’s estate would in any event have become statute-barred before the proceedings began.

Boylan also claimed that Christopher Tighe had agreed in a 2013 phone call to accept reduced rent. The court held that Boylan’s affidavit did not say the company relied on that alleged promise or changed its position because of it. The company’s subsequent payments at the lower amount did not, by themselves, establish reliance for a promissory estoppel defence.

The court entered judgment jointly against the company and Boylan for €32,199.77, representing rent arrears and VAT up to the lease’s expiry on 30 September 2014. It waived interest on that part of the claim because of a calculation error. It separately entered judgment against the company alone for €177,503.52, covering the balance of the landlords’ claim, including rent, VAT and interest up to 8 July 2021.

The balance of the claim against Boylan, the guarantor, was sent to a full hearing because the parties accepted that his guarantee might not extend beyond the lease term. The court made no order on possession of the units; it said it would hear further submissions on that application and on costs.

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