Judgment: 2012-12-14 · Court archive

High Court allows landlords to add later rent and charges to summary claim

The court set aside the Master’s decision limiting the claim and allowed the landlords to enter final judgment for €89,312.92, including later rent, service charges and an insurance premium.

High Court · [2012] IEHC 546

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Quarryvale Two Limited
  • Quarry Vale Three Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Stephen Beere
  • Graeme Beere (Defendant)
  • O’Neill J.
What

The court set aside the Master’s decision limiting the claim and allowed the landlords to enter final judgment for €89,312.92, including later rent, service charges and an insurance premium.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Food Court Kiosk
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 4 November 2011; 1 April 2004

    The judgment, delivered by O’Neill J. on 14 December 2012, concerned a lease of a food court kiosk at Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. The 20-year lease began on 1 April 2004. The landlords issued the summary summons on 4 November 2011, initially claiming €43,858.31 for rent, food service and other service charges, and interest.

  • 31 January 2012

    On 31 January 2012, the Master gave the landlords liberty to enter final judgment for €44,274.87. The Master’s order did not address the balance or transfer it to the court. The landlords then applied to the High Court to set aside that decision and sought liberty to enter judgment for the additional sums.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

O’Neill J. held that the rules governing summary summons proceedings allowed additional claims for liquidated sums where they arose from circumstances similar to and closely associated with the original claim, and were properly set out and supported by affidavit evidence. The court accepted that the additional rent, service charges and insurance premium in this case met that description. The defendants’ only stated ground for opposing those additions was the jurisdictional argument, which the judge rejected.

The High Court ruled that landlords could include certain rent and other charges that fell due after they issued a summary summons, allowing Quarryvale Two Limited and Quarry Vale Three Limited to enter final judgment for €89,312.92 against Stephen Beere and Graeme Beere.

The judgment, delivered by O’Neill J. on 14 December 2012, concerned a lease of a food court kiosk at Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. The 20-year lease began on 1 April 2004. The landlords issued the summary summons on 4 November 2011, initially claiming €43,858.31 for rent, food service and other service charges, and interest.

By the hearing before the High Court, the landlords sought €89,312.92. That total included the original claim, accrued interest, rent and charges for January to March 2012, and €1,103.20 in insurance arrears. The defendants opposed the additions made after the summons was issued, arguing that the Master could grant judgment only for amounts included in the summons’s special endorsement of claim.

On 31 January 2012, the Master gave the landlords liberty to enter final judgment for €44,274.87. The Master’s order did not address the balance or transfer it to the court. The landlords then applied to the High Court to set aside that decision and sought liberty to enter judgment for the additional sums.

O’Neill J. held that the rules governing summary summons proceedings allowed additional claims for liquidated sums where they arose from circumstances similar to and closely associated with the original claim, and were properly set out and supported by affidavit evidence. The court accepted that the additional rent, service charges and insurance premium in this case met that description. The defendants’ only stated ground for opposing those additions was the jurisdictional argument, which the judge rejected.

The court set aside the Master’s decision and concluded that the landlords were entitled to enter final judgment for €89,312.92. The judgment addressed the ability to include the later sums in these proceedings; it does not state that the amount was paid.

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