The High Court has refused Esso Ireland Limited and Ireland ROC Limited’s application for injunctions to remove 911 Retail Limited from food-service premises at 32 Esso service stations, leaving the dispute to be resolved at a full trial.
In a judgment delivered on 4 July 2013, Mr Justice Kelly said the ruling concerned an interlocutory application only. The plaintiffs accepted they could not show that damages would be inadequate or that the balance of convenience favoured granting injunctions. They argued that the operating agreements and licences had expired on 20 June 2013, making 911 Retail a trespasser.
The court found that 911 Retail had raised two arguments that could not be dismissed as having no prospect of success at this stage. It argued that the parties’ agreement to negotiate a new contract, followed by unsuccessful negotiations, implied a requirement for a year’s notice before the existing arrangement could end. It also argued that it had acquired rights under the Landlord and Tenant code despite the licence terms. The judge said both arguments faced formidable difficulties, but their merits required fuller consideration.
The dispute concerns 31 premises covered by an operating agreement and separate licences, and a 32nd site, known as the Belmont premises, covered by a concession agreement. The operating agreement began in June 2002 and was extended by 12 months in May 2012. The plaintiffs notified 911 Retail in May 2013 that they were terminating the Belmont concession from midnight on 20 June 2013.
The judge also considered the consequences of removal before trial. The plaintiffs had no third party ready to take over the food-service operations, and the premises could otherwise lie vacant. If 911 Retail remained, it would continue paying the usual outgoings. The company employed 150 people, whose jobs would be at risk if an injunction forced the outlets to close.
The court refused the injunctions, subject to the parties scrupulously observing pre-trial directions and 911 Retail continuing to meet its obligations under the agreements. The court gave liberty to apply if those conditions were breached. The ruling did not determine the parties’ final rights after trial.