The High Court refused interlocutory relief sought by two companies seeking to remain in commercial premises on Moore Street and Moore Lane in Dublin city centre. The applications were heard together because the parties accepted that their material facts and issues were essentially the same.
The judgment concerned AIM Cash and Carry Limited’s application against Allpoints Building and Maintenance Limited and a related application by Only Three Euro Limited against Tamco Management Limited. The court heard the first application’s motion papers and treated both applications as standing or falling together.
The applicants sought orders preventing their removal from the premises, requiring the respondents to perform alleged agreements for further short-term leases, and declarations concerning entitlement to leases and alleged representations. The High Court considered the applications at the interlocutory stage; it did not finally decide the underlying claims.
AIM’s director, Naeem Maniar, said the company understood it would receive further short-term leases based on alleged oral and written representations. The respondent’s director, Basil Good, denied promising unconditional renewals. He said any new lettings depended on the owner granting a new lease to the respondent and consenting to sub-tenancies. The respondents also relied on evidence that the head lease had ended on 30 June 2014 and that the respondent had relinquished possession.
The court said the requested orders were, in substance, mandatory and could go a long way towards resolving the case. The applicants therefore needed to show a strong arguable case. The judge identified two obstacles: whether the alleged lease agreement was sufficiently certain, including as to its term, start date and rent; and whether an order could properly be made against the respondent despite evidence it no longer had an interest in the premises.
The applicants also argued that the respondent and the owner should be treated as a single economic entity. The judge rejected that argument at this stage, finding no evidence that the two were controlled by the same overarching entity and noting the owner was not a party to the proceedings. The court was not satisfied that the applicants had established the required strong arguable case, while expressly leaving the factual and legal issues for trial.
The judge added that damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicants’ asserted commercial losses and that the balance of convenience did not favour an injunction. The interlocutory relief was refused.