The High Court has ruled that Technological University Dublin (TUD) may acquire the fee simple in land at its Kevin Street campus held under a 1952 lease, but not in a neighbouring plot held under a separate 1978 lease.
In a judgment delivered on 9 February 2021, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland varied a Circuit Court decision that had allowed TUD to acquire both plots for €8,150. She found that the 1978 plot did not meet the statutory requirement for permanent buildings. The court said it would hear further submissions on the purchase price for the land TUD could acquire.
The dispute concerned two plots in Dublin 8. TUD held plot A under a 150-year lease made in 1952, with annual rent of £60, and plot C under a 1978 lease for the remainder of the same term, with no additional rent. The 1978 lease said the 1952 lease was to be read as if the additional premises had originally been included in it.
TUD argued that both plots should be treated as held under the 1952 lease. The judge rejected that argument: plot C had been demised under the 1978 lease, and its legal interest derived from that lease. She also rejected Prime GP2 Limited’s alternative argument that the 1978 arrangement had surrendered the 1952 lease and granted a new lease covering both plots.
On plot C, the evidence identified an external steel fire escape as the only possible structure that might qualify as a building. The judge found that it had no walls or roof, was not in the nature of a house, and could be removed without significant impact on the building to which it was attached. She held that it was not a permanent building for the purposes of the Ground Rents legislation. Since that requirement was mandatory, she did not decide whether TUD could prove who had constructed it.
Prime also argued that separate statutory notices were required for the two leases. The judge rejected that challenge, finding that one notice to the same superior-interest holder adequately identified the land and interests TUD sought to acquire.
A further challenge concerning whether unbuilt portions of plot A were subsidiary and ancillary to its buildings was raised for the first time in the High Court appeal. The judge refused to admit it, finding that it was raised at the last minute, would prejudice TUD, and could not fairly be decided without evidence. She therefore concluded that TUD was entitled to acquire the fee simple and intermediate interests in the land held under the 1952 lease, but not the land held under the 1978 lease.