The High Court has refused a landlord’s application for an interim order for possession of a Dublin 2 jewellery shop, leaving the tenant in occupation while its application for a new tenancy is pursued in the Circuit Court.
In a judgment delivered on 27 February 2020, Ms Justice Reynolds said the status quo should be preserved pending determination of that application. The ruling concerned interlocutory injunctive relief in proceedings brought by Jason Investments Unlimited Company against C&S Jewellery Limited and its guarantors, Charlie Cullen and Suzanne Gilhooly. It did not determine the tenant’s new tenancy application or finally resolve the landlord’s claim for possession.
Jason Investments sought possession on two grounds: unpaid rent and its exercise of a break option in the lease. The lease provided for annual rent of €65,000, payable quarterly in advance, and a landlord’s break option at the end of the fifth year on at least six months’ notice. The company gave notice in November 2018, stating that the lease would end on 10 July 2019.
The court recorded that no rent was paid between 16 January and 7 June 2019. Arrears were discharged before the injunction hearing, and the tenant had undertaken to pay rent monthly in advance and comply with the lease while the application was pending. The tenant had also served a notice of intention to claim relief under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980, seeking a new tenancy. The landlord disputed that claim’s timing; the judgment noted that the Circuit Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the new tenancy application.
The landlord argued that the rent default brought the tenant’s right to remain in occupation to an end. The defendants relied on the 1980 Act and argued that their claimed set-off or counterclaim over property repairs could be relevant to relief against forfeiture. The judge considered the statutory right to remain in occupation while a new tenancy application is pending, subject to the tenancy’s terms, including rent.
In refusing interim relief, Ms Justice Reynolds said the landlord had not established a prima facie case for possession. She also found the balance of convenience favoured refusal given the discharged arrears, undertakings for future rent and the tenant’s right to pursue its Circuit Court claim. The landlord had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that damages would be inadequate.
The judge also criticised the landlord’s failure to disclose its subsidiary’s nearby jewellery business and unresolved property-condition issues in its injunction application. She concluded that the status quo should remain until the tenant’s application is determined.