Judgment: 2024-01-24 · Court archive

Appeal court reduces Leinster Leader rent judgment, sends disputed sums to full hearing

The Court of Appeal ordered judgment for €112,781.72 against Formpress Publishing, with €65,594.59 of the claim to be considered at a plenary hearing.

Court of Appeal · [2024] IECA 15

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Formpress Publishing Limited (Appellant)
  • SKA Management Limited
What

The Court of Appeal ordered judgment for €112,781.72 against Formpress Publishing, with €65,594.59 of the claim to be considered at a plenary hearing.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • The Tempest Buildings
  • Dundalk
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 28 March 2014; 31 August 2017

    The appeal concerned rent claimed by Leinster Leader Limited, which is in liquidation, for premises at The Tempest Buildings, Douglas Place, Crowe Street, Dundalk. Formpress occupied the property under an underlease from 28 March 2014 until it vacated on 31 August 2017. No rent was demanded from Formpress while it occupied the premises.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge to the demand: it held that the lease did not require a written demand and that the oral demand, accompanied by documents claiming rent, was sufficient. It also rejected the argument that the absence of consent to the underlease entitled Formpress to resist rent. The court said Formpress had expressly acknowledged that consent had not been obtained and was estopped from relying on that absence to challenge the liquidator’s entitlement to rent.

The Court of Appeal has reduced a rent arrears judgment against Formpress Publishing Limited from €158,747.81 to €112,781.72, sending the remaining €65,594.59 of the claim for a plenary hearing.

The appeal concerned rent claimed by Leinster Leader Limited, which is in liquidation, for premises at The Tempest Buildings, Douglas Place, Crowe Street, Dundalk. Formpress occupied the property under an underlease from 28 March 2014 until it vacated on 31 August 2017. No rent was demanded from Formpress while it occupied the premises.

The underlying superior lease was between Leinster Leader and SKA Management Limited. SKA Management had been struck off the Companies Register in 1999 and was restored in October 2018. Its director demanded rent arrears from Leinster Leader’s liquidator in September 2020. The liquidator later sought €178,376.31 from Formpress, including VAT.

The High Court granted summary judgment for €158,747.81 in April 2023 and sent the balance to a plenary hearing. Formpress appealed, arguing, among other things, that the demand from SKA Management was insufficient, that some rent was statute-barred, that the underlease lacked the superior landlord’s consent, and that Leinster Leader had failed to mitigate its losses after Formpress left.

The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge to the demand: it held that the lease did not require a written demand and that the oral demand, accompanied by documents claiming rent, was sufficient. It also rejected the argument that the absence of consent to the underlease entitled Formpress to resist rent. The court said Formpress had expressly acknowledged that consent had not been obtained and was estopped from relying on that absence to challenge the liquidator’s entitlement to rent.

However, the court held that Formpress could argue at a full hearing that the liquidator should not have admitted rent claims against Leinster Leader that may have been statute-barred. That issue applies to the rent gales due on 1 April, 1 July and 1 October 2014. It also found an arguable issue over whether the liquidator should have retaken possession and re-let the property to reduce losses for 2018. That issue concerns four rent gales in 2018; the court did not extend it to the October 2017 gale.

The court substituted judgment for €112,781.72 and adjourned the balance for plenary hearing. It invited the parties to agree the calculation and costs orders within 14 days of electronic delivery; if they could not agree, a short hearing was to be arranged. The court did not resolve the referred issues at the appeal stage.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review