Judgment: 2025-04-10 · Court archive

High Court rejects Point Village contempt bid against Dunnes Stores over anchor unit fit-out

High Court, Commercial · [2025] IEHC 212

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Point Village Development Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Mark Sanfey (Judge)
What

High Court rejects Point Village contempt bid against Dunnes Stores over anchor unit fit-out

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Point Village Centre
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected an attempt by Point Village Development Limited to have Dunnes Stores held in contempt over its fit-out of an anchor retail unit at the Point Village Centre in Dublin's docklands.

The High Court has rejected an attempt by Point Village Development Limited to have Dunnes Stores held in contempt over its fit-out of an anchor retail unit at the Point Village Centre in Dublin's docklands.

The dispute arose from a 2008 Development Agreement under which Dunnes was required to prepare fit-out plans and carry out works at the unit. In 2021, the High Court ordered specific performance of those obligations, a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Dunnes subsequently submitted plans and opened a grocery store on July 27, 2022. Point Village argued that the fit-out covered only about 2.9% of the total store area, leaving more than 90% as an unfinished shell. It described the approach as a cynical attempt to avoid the substance of the earlier orders and sought contempt findings, fines, sequestration and other coercive relief.

Dunnes accepted that it had missed the June 10, 2022 deadline for completing the works, but denied contempt. It argued that neither the Development Agreement nor the court orders expressly required it to fit out the entire leased area.

Mr Justice Mark Sanfey held that contempt had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the underlying court order had to be clear and unambiguous.

The judge found that the term "anchor unit" was not defined in the Development Agreement and that the earlier judgments had decided only that Dunnes could not refuse to carry out any fit-out works at all. They had not determined how much of the leased space had to be fitted out.

He also found ambiguity in the requirement that the plans comply with the Fit Out Guide "in all material respects".

The contempt application was therefore dismissed. The court stressed that it was not deciding whether Dunnes had breached the Development Agreement itself; that contractual issue may still be litigated separately. Costs and Dunnes' application to extend the completion deadline were left for further submissions.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review