The High Court has dismissed Parkdenton Limited’s application to set aside an arbitration award fixing annual rent at €149,000 for retail premises at the Parnell Centre, Dublin 1.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Nolan on 22 July 2024, concerned a rent review effective from 6 January 2023. Parkdenton, the landlord, had sought to overturn the award under Article 34 of the Model Law, arguing that it had been unable to present its case and that the arbitrator had decided matters beyond the scope of the arbitration.
The dispute involved a ground-floor retail area and first-floor storage space at Unit 1 and 2, Parnell Centre. The arbitrator, Mr Mervyn Feely, set the ground-floor rent at €23.44 per square foot and the storage rent at €2.50 per square foot, producing a total of €148,973.36, rounded to €149,000.
Parkdenton submitted that the arbitrator must have relied on a proposed letting in the nearby Ivy Building, which had been withdrawn from consideration because the letting to prospective tenant Flyefit did not proceed. It also argued that the storage area should have been valued at about one-third of the ground-floor rate, and that the arbitrator’s adjustments to the ground-floor comparisons were inadequately reasoned.
The tenant, Euro General Retail Limited, trading as EuroGiant, opposed the application. It said the arbitrator had assessed the evidence presented by both sides, inspected the premises and explained his valuation.
Mr Justice Nolan found that the arbitrator had stated twice that he did not consider the Ivy Building comparison, and there was no evidence that he had relied on it. The court said the arbitrator had other evidence and had explained his approach to the ground-floor valuation. On the storage space, the judge found that the arbitrator had considered its size, access difficulties and lack of a lift. He also found no evidence of an industry rule requiring storage space to be valued at one-third of retail rent, or that the parties had agreed to such a method.
The court stressed that an application under Article 34 is not an appeal on the merits and that the grounds for setting aside an award are narrow. It concluded that Parkdenton had had the opportunity to present and challenge the evidence, and that there had been no procedural irregularity. The court dismissed the application; it did not re-determine the rent.