The Court of Appeal has rejected Dunnes Stores Dublin Company’s attempt to prevent a planned multi-storey car park at Tallaght Shopping Centre, ruling that its lease rights did not give it a veto over redevelopment of the common areas.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Whelan on 6 October 2017, concerned a development authorised by An Bord Pleanála in 2014. It includes a six-level car park with 832 spaces and would increase the centre’s overall parking capacity by 432 spaces.
Dunnes argued that a 1991 deed gave it rights over the Northern Car Park Area, where 289 surface spaces were then located. It said those rights prevented the landlords from proceeding with the works. The landlords maintained that Dunnes’ rights were limited by the terms of its leases, which reserved their ability to redevelop the centre and its common areas.
The High Court had ruled for the landlords in March 2017. It held that the 1991 deed was null and void, found the development permitted by the leases and dismissed Dunnes’ counterclaim. Dunnes appealed. The Court of Appeal agreed that the proposed development did not amount to a derogation from grant or a permanent interference with the use or amenity of Dunnes’ units.
The appeal court differed from the High Court on the legal effect of the 1991 deed. It held that the deed created a licence coupled with the leasehold interests under the E & G and F leases. The landlords were therefore estopped from claiming that the deed was null and void. But the licence did not give Dunnes property rights independent of those leases, and it remained subject to their provisions, including the landlords’ reserved right to redevelop common areas.
The court said Dunnes could not insist that 289 surface spaces, or the existing car park layout, remain unchanged. It found the proposed works would reconfigure parking and provide more spaces overall after completion. The judgment also referred to evidence that other parking would be available while construction took place.
The court allowed two limited parts of Dunnes’ appeal: it granted declarations that the licence was irrevocable during the relevant leasehold interests, subject to the stated breach provisions, and that the landlords’ October 2015 letter did not revoke it. The landlords’ cross-appeal was dismissed. These rulings did not prevent the development or give Dunnes a veto over it.