The High Court has given Ronan and Jacqueline McNamee judgment for €557,780.93, plus interest and costs, in a dispute over rent for premises occupied by a pharmacy at the junction of Grafton Street and Duke Street in Dublin city.
Mr Justice Barrett delivered the judgment on 1 April 2014. He refused the defendants’ request to have the summary proceedings sent to a plenary hearing, finding that their arguments did not establish a defence requiring that step.
The McNamees sought rent under a lease and licence arrangement involving Estherfield Limited and Hickey’s Pharmacy Limited. The court said the defendants were jointly and severally liable for rent under those arrangements. It found that the amounts claimed for outstanding rent were correctly accounted for, disposing of the defendants’ dispute over the figures.
The defendants also argued that an allegedly unauthorised development by the plaintiffs at a property that did not adjoin the leased premises would harm the pharmacy business. The judge treated that issue as an independent counterclaim, rather than a defence or a basis for setting off the rent. He said the alleged development was unconnected to the rent due under the lease and that the evidence did not establish a plausible counterclaim or quantify any loss.
The court added that even if the counterclaim were plausible, it did not require the landlords to wait until separate plenary proceedings concluded before recovering rent. The judgment does not determine the substance of the alleged planning dispute; it addresses whether that claim prevented judgment in the rent proceedings or justified delaying enforcement.
The defendants further disputed that rent becoming due after the notice of motion could be recovered in the same proceedings. Following earlier High Court decisions, Mr Justice Barrett held that later rent could be included where it arose from circumstances closely associated with the original claim, was properly set out and supported by affidavit evidence, and consisted of liquidated sums. He found those principles applied to the additional arrears claimed under the same lease and licence.
The court therefore entered judgment for the full amount sought, with interest and costs.