The High Court has ruled that Dublin Port Company is entitled to recover possession of business premises on Promenade Road from Automation Transport Limited after finding that the company had validly renounced its right to a new tenancy.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald said the lease had ended after the port company exercised a break clause, which the tenant was not contesting. The court held that the renunciation, signed by the tenant’s director in 2012, applied to the Promenade Road lease despite errors in the document. The judge said references to a one-year office tenancy and to the wrong legislation could be corrected by interpreting the document in its factual context. He also found that the tenant had received independent legal advice, as required by law.
The judge said he would hear submissions on how long the tenant should have to leave. He dismissed the tenant’s counterclaim for a new tenancy and damages.
The judgment criticised the port company’s handling of the case. It said the company had alleged repair breaches without first inspecting the premises and had initially claimed that the tenant was processing or manufacturing plastics there, based on a mistaken understanding of its activities. The court dismissed the plastics claim after the plaintiff’s building surveyor accepted that no manufacturing process was taking place.
The port company sought €307,479.24 for alleged repair breaches, including €115,830 for the concrete yard surface. The judge dismissed the damages claim concerning the concrete hardstanding and corrugated iron sheds. Photographs showed that the concrete was already extensively cracked before the tenant moved in, and the landlord had not carried out a condition survey required by the lease. The court said the evidence did not establish which damage arose during the tenancy. It also found repairs to the yard and sheds would serve no useful purpose because the port company did not intend to retain them.
Other repair items were left for discussion between the parties’ surveyors, with any unresolved dispute able to return to court. The court made no order on the other alleged covenant breaches. It found that fuel had been stored without the required licence, but gave the plaintiff liberty to apply on that issue. The judge also left costs for a later hearing.