The High Court has ruled that Castletown Foundation Ltd is entitled to summary judgment against George Magan for €571,893 in rent arrears at Castletown Cox, County Kilkenny. The court left the form of the order, statutory interest and whether enforcement should be stayed for further submissions from counsel.
In a judgment delivered on 21 November 2018, Mr Justice Robert Haughton also declined to dismiss the foundation’s claims concerning termination of the tenancy and Magan’s claim to a new tenancy. He ordered that the foundation’s claims about whether the tenancy was validly terminated, and related relief, be stayed pending the Circuit Court proceedings. The foundation may apply to lift the stay if circumstances change.
The dispute concerns a 2010 letting agreement for Castletown House and 53.61 acres. The agreement set rent at €100,000 a year. Magan did not dispute the arrears figure as of 12 April 2018. He argued that claims over upkeep contributions and alleged trespass when the foundation retook possession could provide a defence or equitable set-off against the rent claim.
The judge found no adequate evidential basis for a bona fide defence based on upkeep payments. He also held that the agreement barred the tenant from setting sums off against rent, including through equitable set-off. The damages claim over the alleged trespass was not quantified, and the foundation had not been notified of Magan’s referral of a termination-notice dispute to the Residential Tenancies Board until the day after it retook possession.
Magan separately applied to dismiss or permanently stay the foundation’s proceedings. The court rejected that application insofar as it sought to strike out the termination-related claims. It found the foundation had an arguable case that the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply, given Magan’s claim for a new business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980. The judgment did not finally decide whether the second termination notice was valid.
The Circuit Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether Magan qualifies for a new tenancy or compensation under the 1980 Act. The High Court considered whether it could determine the foundation’s arguments that he was disqualified, but found no urgency to do so: the purchaser had taken over the Sancus debt and security, and the foundation had obtained summary judgment. It therefore stayed the foundation’s claims seeking declarations that Magan was not entitled to a new tenancy, along with related relief, pending final determination of the Circuit Court case.
The court’s ruling did not determine Magan’s entitlement to a new tenancy, the validity of the termination notice, interest, withholding tax arrangements or whether the rent judgment would be stayed. Those matters remained for further submissions or the Circuit Court proceedings.