The High Court allowed an appeal by Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE) after ruling that Wintertide Limited could not pursue a claim for a new tenancy in the Paper Store premises on Sheriff Street, Dublin.
Ms Justice Dunne’s judgment, delivered on 28 July 2010, overturned a preliminary ruling made by the Circuit Court in April 2009. That ruling had found Wintertide entitled to a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980. The High Court appeal concerned that entitlement; it did not determine the terms of a new tenancy or any compensation claim.
The claim began with Gypsum Industries Limited, which had sublet part of the Paper Store from Irish Press Limited. Gypsum served notices in December 2000 seeking relief under the 1980 Act. Its sub-tenancy expired on 31 December 2000, while its application remained pending. In January 2002, Gypsum assigned its interests to Wintertide, which was substituted as applicant by a County Registrar’s order. CIE did not challenge that substitution order at the time, but later disputed Wintertide’s right to continue the claim.
CIE accepted that Gypsum had a prima facie entitlement to seek a new tenancy when it served notice, subject to statutory grounds of objection. It argued that Gypsum’s tenancy had ended before the assignment and that Wintertide had never been a tenant with a right to claim a new tenancy. Wintertide argued that Gypsum had assigned its rights in the premises, including its right to pursue the claim.
The judge held that the substitution order changed the case title but did not decide whether Wintertide had a substantive right under the Act. She relied on earlier decisions interpreting section 28 as giving a tenant a personal, temporary right to remain in occupation while an application for a new tenancy is pending. That right does not create an estate or interest in the land capable of transfer, she said.
Because Gypsum’s tenancy had expired before the assignment, the judge found that the assignment could not give Wintertide tenant status or allow it to step into Gypsum’s position in the new-tenancy application. The High Court therefore allowed CIE’s appeal.
The judgment did not decide CIE’s arguments about consent to the assignment, a scheme of development, or good estate management. The court said those issues did not need to be considered after its finding on Wintertide’s entitlement.