The High Court has found that a Handprint coffee outlet operating inside a Freshii unit at Point Village breached an exclusivity clause benefiting a neighbouring Starbucks outlet. It awarded Rexbay Limited €116,518 for losses, with the final form of order, costs and any claim for Courts Acts interest left for a further hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 6 October 2023, Ms Justice Stack held that the 2015 side letter barred the landlord from granting a first letting for an excluded coffee chain in any part of the centre. The clause covered a coffee brand operating through a franchisee and applied even though the Handprint counter occupied only part of Unit 1.
The landlord had argued that the letting was outside the clause and that Handprint’s coffee sales were ancillary to Freshii’s food business. The court rejected both arguments. It found the unit contained two distinct businesses: separate branding, counters, queues and tills directed customers to different offerings, and purchases at one counter could not be made at the other. Handprint’s primary product was coffee, while Freshii’s was food. The clause allowed food outlets to sell coffee as an ancillary part of their offering, but that exception did not cover a separate coffee business sharing the unit.
Rexbay held the lease and side letter for the Starbucks outlet, although another company in its corporate group held the Starbucks franchise and managed day-to-day operations. The defendants disputed whether Rexbay itself traded and had suffered a loss. The judge accepted that the group company managed the business on Rexbay’s behalf, while Rexbay controlled the premises and accounted for the outlet’s turnover, costs and profits. She found Rexbay was entitled to claim damages.
Handprint closed on 4 November 2022, so Rexbay abandoned its claim for future losses and pursued losses only to that date. The court accepted the plaintiff’s accountant’s 10% projection for Starbucks sales growth in its third year, rather than the defendants’ proposed 6%. It also found, on the balance of probabilities, that Handprint’s sales would have been made by Starbucks if Handprint had not opened beside it. The judge therefore accepted the €116,518 claim, calculated using Handprint’s sales and agreed profit rates, less cost savings from lower Starbucks sales.
The judgment determines liability and the damages amount. The court said it would list the matter for submissions on the final form of order, costs and any interest; the source does not report the result of that further hearing.