The High Court’s Commercial Court has directed that Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. trading as Rabobank Dublin and related Zurich proceedings against their landlord proceed separately from the landlord’s claims against five construction firms involved in the building’s construction.
In a judgment delivered on 10 November 2023, Ms Justice Eileen Roberts granted Rabobank’s application under Order 63A, rule 5 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The direction allows the trial of the tenant claims to take place in advance of and distinct from the disputes between landlord AM Alpha Lux Invest 130 S.à r.l. and the third parties. The judge’s decision concerned both Rabobank’s case and related proceedings brought by Zurich entities. It did not decide the underlying claims or determine who was responsible for any alleged defects.
Rabobank alleges that since occupying the sixth, seventh and eighth floors of the office building at 76 Sir John Rogerson’s Quay in Dublin, it has experienced heating and cooling problems, poor air circulation, leaks and lingering odours. The landlord denies the pleaded issues. It also alleges that Rabobank’s fit-out works may have contributed to some problems; that remains disputed. Zurich, which leased the ground and fourth floors but had not moved in, brought claims arising from similar complaints and also alleges a pre-lease misrepresentation.
The landlord had joined Bennett (Construction) Limited, Ethos Engineering Limited, Walsh Mechanical Engineering Limited, RKD Architects Limited and Trenmor Unlimited Company trading as Linesight to pursue claims relating to the building. Most of the parties opposed separate trials, arguing for a combined hearing, in some cases with evidence heard in phases. RKD supported separation.
The judge found that the landlord-tenant claims were likely to be less complex and shorter than the disputes among the landlord and the five construction firms. Although some technical evidence could overlap, she was not persuaded there would be significant duplication. She also considered that tying the tenant claims to the third-party disputes could cause substantial delay, with the possibility of further parties being added.
The order separates the trials; it does not prevent the landlord and third parties from investigating or undertaking remediation. The judge said the parties’ experts should engage promptly on the proposed remediation works, with the aim of agreeing on them or clarifying what was planned. She proposed listing the matter on 21 November 2023 to address costs and any further directions. The judgment does not state the outcome of that later listing.