The High Court has declared that the leasehold interest held by dissolved company Fermoy Show Limited vested in the State when the company was dissolved in 1999. The declaration was made under section 30 of the State Property Act 1954, on an application by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 2 December 2016, Ms Justice Baker said the declaration confirmed a vesting that had already occurred by operation of law. It did not itself create the vesting. The Minister, as statutory successor to the Minister for Finance, held the freehold interest in the premises.
The court was satisfied that Fermoy Show Limited held a lease granted in 1960 for a 99-year term beginning on 1 July 1950, and that the company was dissolved on 16 April 1999. It also found that the Minister had not disclaimed the lease. The judgment says part of the company’s leasehold interest had been assigned to the ESB in 1995; that portion was excluded because it was not held by the company when it was dissolved.
The application followed an earlier ex parte order directing service and advertisements. Justice Baker said she was satisfied that the required notice and service had been carried out. Two parties appeared in response: a holder of a sub-lease associated with Fermoy Rugby Club, and a director representing P. Dunlea & Sons Limited, which had applied to be restored to the register of companies.
The Rugby Club raised questions about the extent of its leased land, possible changes to lease terms, third-party rights and whether the proceedings could affect certain landlord and tenant rights. The court said its role under section 30 was narrow: it could declare the interest vested in the Minister if the required proofs were met, but would not determine the extent of sub-leases, encumbrances or other rights. Those questions could be addressed in another forum.
The court ordered that the interest held by Fermoy Show Limited at dissolution vested in the applicant Minister, subject to the sub-leases listed in a schedule and to any leases, encumbrances or charges affecting the property immediately before dissolution. The order was to include the relevant parcels description and a list of sub-leases, but no map. The judgment did not resolve the parties’ disputes about the scope or effect of those interests.