The High Court fixed the price for A. O’Gorman & Co. Ltd to acquire the fee simple in Carrick House, Main Street, Carrickmacross, at €30,000. The ruling followed a rehearing of an appeal by JES Holdings Ltd against a Circuit Court order. The judge said his findings were subject to a constitutional challenge being heard simultaneously with the appeal, and that the outcome of that challenge could affect them.
The dispute concerned the tenant’s March 1998 notice seeking to acquire the freehold under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) legislation. The Circuit Court had affirmed the tenant’s entitlement, ordered JES Holdings to assign its interest, and set the price at £20,000. The High Court considered both eligibility and price on appeal.
The judgment described Carrick House as having been substantially altered and expanded for commercial use, including a supermarket and off-licence. The landlord argued that the buildings had not lost their original identity and that the tenant’s works breached a lease covenant requiring written consent. The judge found the original house had lost its identity. He also held that, despite breaches of the covenant, it would be unreasonable to deny the tenant the statutory right: the landlord had consented retrospectively to earlier works and, in the judge’s view, likely would have consented to later works.
The court held that the tenant met the relevant statutory conditions. It found the unbuilt area at the rear of the premises was ancillary and subsidiary to the buildings, and that the tenant could rely on the statutory presumption concerning who erected the buildings. It also rejected the landlord’s argument that a first-floor area extending over an adjoining building, described in the judgment as a “flying freehold”, placed the tenant outside the statutory scheme.
For the price, the court applied a statutory formula based on the value of the premises as originally demised, with specified deductions, then divided by eight. It assessed the price at €30,000, taking a middle-ground figure between the valuers’ estimates. The judgment records that the Circuit Court’s order had set £20,000; the High Court’s €30,000 assessment was subject to the pending constitutional challenge. The source does not set out a final order replacing the Circuit Court order or the eventual result of that challenge.