The High Court ruled that Thomas and Mary Walsh owed Helsingor Limited €1,223,589 for building extras and rent arrears, subject to the parties having an opportunity to consider the form of the order. The judgment did not decide any claim concerning alleged pyrite at the garage premises.
Mr Justice Sean Ryan delivered the judgment on 2 February 2012 in a Commercial Court plenary hearing. Helsingor’s earlier application for summary judgment had been refused, and the case referred to a full hearing. The judge’s decision awarded €947,725 for extras, including VAT, and €275,864 in rent arrears calculated to April 2011.
The dispute arose from agreements made in 2005. The Walshes gave up their garage premises in Baldoyle so an associated company of Helsingor could clear the site for a housing and apartment development. Helsingor agreed to build a replacement garage nearby. The Walshes moved into the new premises around April 2006, though they said the building was not usable until later that year because of delays and outstanding work.
The rent for the first four years and nine months was tied to the landlord’s borrowing costs for the construction, agreed at €3,115,000. The lease also required the tenants to be consulted about the financing account with a view to securing an acceptable rate. The judge found they had not been consulted. After hearing conflicting expert evidence, he set the margin at 2% above Euribor, below the 2.5% margin Helsingor had charged. He also excluded VAT from the building cost used in the rent calculation. On that basis, rent to April 2011 was €795,864; after deducting €520,000 paid, the balance was €275,864.
The Walshes disputed the rent calculation and said the replacement garage required nearly €1 million in extras to become usable. The judge said their complaints about delay and business losses were not pleaded as counterclaims and were outside the issues for decision in this action.
Helsingor’s claim for extras was based on an agreed sum of €835,000 plus VAT. The defence admitted that the additional works and their cost had been agreed, though it disputed the amount then due. The judge relied on a 2008 letter from the Walshes’ solicitor confirming the invoice and saying they were arranging funding to pay it. He found no answer to the claim for extras.
The judge excluded proposed evidence about alleged pyrite contamination because it had not been raised in the pleadings. He said any claim based on pyrite could be brought in separate proceedings. The judgment therefore addressed the debt claims before the court, not the merits of a pyrite claim or any forfeiture claim.