The High Court granted Camiveo Limited an interlocutory injunction requiring Dunnes Stores to keep the automatic opening mechanism operating on doors between its unit at Edward Square Shopping Centre in Galway and Castle Street/Barrack Lane during the store’s opening hours.
In a judgment delivered on 9 September 2015, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said the order restored the status quo that had existed for 15 years, until the doors were closed on 17 June 2015. He described the application as prohibitory, aimed at preventing the doors from remaining closed, rather than as a mandatory injunction.
The ruling is an interim decision. The judge said he was not reaching a final view on the parties’ dispute. Applying the Campus Oil test, he found that Camiveo had raised a fair or serious question to be tried, that the balance of convenience favoured restoring the prior arrangement, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the injunction were refused and Camiveo later succeeded at trial.
Camiveo is the landlord of Edward Square Shopping Centre; Dunnes is the tenant and occupier of the unit described in the lease cover as the centre’s “Anchor Unit”. The judge noted that the lease had no “keep open clause”, which Camiveo accepted. He said the application concerned use of the disputed doors as access to and from the store during trading hours, not whether Dunnes had to keep the store open.
The judge considered that the evidence at this stage supported Camiveo’s arguments that the doors had been the main entrance and that access from Castle Street/Barrack Lane mattered to the other centre occupiers. Camiveo also argued that keeping the route open was required to meet the planning authority’s objective of connecting different parts of the city centre. The judge said whether the closure impeded that connectivity, and whether it breached planning permission, would need to be determined at the full hearing.
He noted that the local authority had threatened enforcement proceedings over the closure, but Dunnes disputed the legitimacy of that action. The court also accepted that Camiveo could provide an adequate undertaking as to damages. The judgment additionally criticised the volume of affidavits filed, saying reply affidavits should add relevant information rather than repeat arguments.