The High Court has dismissed a landlord’s application for an order requiring Lorgan Leisure Limited to give up Leisureplex in Stillorgan, leaving the tenant’s claim to a new tenancy for the Circuit Court to decide.
In a judgment delivered on 13 March 2020, Mr Justice Denis McDonald ruled that the High Court should decline jurisdiction over the landlord’s interlocutory application. He said the landlord had not shown exceptional urgency or that the tenant’s claim had little or no prospect of success. The court did not decide whether the tenant is ultimately entitled to a new tenancy.
K.W. Investment Funds ICAV had sought vacant possession after exercising a break option in a 2019 letting agreement. It argued that the tenant had renounced its rights to a new tenancy, lacked the required 20 years’ continuous occupation and was estopped from claiming statutory rights. The landlord also relied on planning permission for a redevelopment involving demolition of the existing buildings.
The tenant disputed those claims. It said the 2019 renunciation applied to the five-year business-user route to a new tenancy, but not to a separate route based on 20 years’ continuous occupation. It also claimed that it remained in occupation while another company held the tenancy from 2006 to 2010, and that the landlord’s conduct had not been met with any representation that it would give up its statutory rights.
The judge found the legal arguments about the renunciation were capable of succeeding and should be resolved after a full hearing. He also found an arguable basis for the tenant’s case that occupation by the other company could count towards the 20-year period, including under a rule concerning companies in the same group. The estoppel arguments likewise could not be treated as unanswerable at this stage.
The court rejected the landlord’s reliance on redevelopment costs as a reason for the High Court to intervene. It said the statutory scheme allowed a tenant with a pending claim to remain in occupation while the Circuit Court determined it, even where the landlord had planning permission to demolish the premises. The judge said the claimed delay costs did not distinguish this case from other redevelopment disputes.
Separately, the judge said that even if the High Court had accepted jurisdiction, he would have refused the requested interlocutory injunction. The order sought was mandatory and would have given the landlord possession before trial, effectively removing the tenant’s ability to remain under the statutory scheme. The landlord had not established the strong arguable case required for such relief.
The judgment states that the High Court motion was dismissed. The judge indicated, subject to further argument, that the remaining proceedings should be stayed pending the Circuit Court’s determination of the tenant’s claim, with liberty to re-enter. That proposed stay was not stated as a final order in the judgment.