The High Court ordered that Genport Limited’s continued occupation of Sachs Hotel in Dublin be restrained, but stayed that order on conditions requiring payment of rent and insurance and discharge of rates. The decision concerns Genport’s temporary occupation while its claim for a new tenancy is before the Circuit Court; it does not decide that claim.
Crofter Properties Limited owns Sachs Hotel on Morehampton Road. Genport had occupied it under a lease that expired on 31 July 2001. After applying to the Circuit Court for a new tenancy, Genport remained in occupation under section 28 of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980.
Crofter brought separate High Court proceedings seeking possession over rent arrears and alleged breaches of the expired lease. The court found that, by the start of the rent proceedings in May 2005, Genport owed rent and insurance. After taking account of set-offs for costs in earlier proceedings, the net amount due then was €426,716.42. At the hearing in January 2007, the net sum due for rent and costs was €813,010.39. The judge also found breaches concerning rates, the lapsed intoxicating liquor licence and repair obligations. Certain building works carried out after proceedings began breached the lease’s requirement for prior written approval.
The judge held that a breach did not automatically end Genport’s statutory right to remain in occupation. But where the lease provided a right of re-entry, the court could terminate occupation under section 28 in its discretion. That power should be used only in exceptional circumstances where allowing the tenant to remain while in breach risked serious injustice to the landlord.
The judge considered the unpaid rent, insurance and rates capable of creating that risk, given evidence that Genport was insolvent. However, Mr Philip Smyth offered to fund the outstanding and ongoing payments. The court concluded that if those obligations were met, Crofter would not face the serious injustice required to end Genport’s occupation. The judge did not consider the licence lapse or past repair failures sufficient grounds on the evidence before the court.
The order restrains Genport from continuing to occupy under section 28, with the restraint stayed provided it pays the sums then due for rent and insurance—estimated at €954,644.45—within 14 days, and provides proof that outstanding rates are discharged within 28 days. It must also pay quarterly rent of €141,634.06, provide proof of rates payments by each due date, and pay insurance within 14 days of demand. A failure to meet any condition automatically ends the stay, with failure to be established by an affidavit from Crofter’s solicitor.
The judge said the order applies only to occupation under section 28 and remains operative only while Genport claims that right. The Circuit Court’s final decision will determine any later occupation and the parties’ relationship. The High Court left the precise form of the order and issues about rates timing and proof for further submissions from counsel.