The High Court has declined to grant summary judgment in a claim by Helsingor Limited seeking €1,171,523.80 from Thomas and Mary Walsh over rent and building costs connected with garage premises in Baldoyle, Dublin 13. The court found that the defendants had an arguable case and said it would hear counsel on mediation and directions for their defence.
Mr Justice Charleton’s judgment, delivered on 5 March 2010, concerned an application for summary judgment. The company’s claim comprised rent arrears and €947,725 for additional works, less €520,000 paid on account. The court did not determine the final amount, or whether the defendants owe it.
The parties agreed in April 2005 that the company would build new premises for the defendants’ garage business. The defendants took possession on 30 April 2006 and formally entered a lease in September 2008. Under the agreement, rent during the initial four years and nine months was tied to the company’s borrowing costs. The lease required the company to consult the tenants about the account, with a view to obtaining an acceptable rate.
The company claimed rent of €743,798.88 for 2007 to 2009. The defendants argued that the borrowing rate was too high and said a lower rate would reduce the rent due. They also disputed the separate charge for extra works, saying it should be included in rent. The court rejected their argument that practical completion had not occurred, noting that they had taken possession and traded from the premises.
The judge said the defendants had requested the additional works and received their benefit. He also noted correspondence in which their solicitor said an invoice for variations to the works was correct and that funding was being arranged. But the judgment said there was no separate agreement on when or how the extras were to be paid, and considered it arguable that the later payment arrangement had included them among rent arrears. The judge did not decide whether the tenants could claim compensation for improvements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1980.
The company argued that the defendants’ past conduct and settlement discussions prevented them from challenging the borrowing charges. The judge held that the lease’s consultation requirement had not been met and that the parties’ conduct and any alleged estoppel required evidence. He therefore found an arguable defence and directed that counsel be heard on mediation and on directions granting the defendants liberty to defend the amount claimed. The judgment records those next steps; it does not state that the defence had already been formally granted.