The High Court dismissed challenges to the Digital Hub Development Agency’s entitlement to acquire the freehold of 10, 11 and 12 Rainsford Street, Dublin, but increased the purchase price from €40,600 to €58,100.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2008, O’Neill J. heard an appeal from a Circuit Court order that had affirmed a County Registrar’s decision. The Registrar had determined that the leaseholders could acquire the fee simple, with €40,000 allocated to Martin Keane and Gerry O’Reilly and €600 lodged in court for unknown intermediate interests. The High Court left the entitlement to acquire in place and altered the price by adding €17,500.
The appellants argued that the statutory scheme did not allow the State agency to acquire the freehold and that the applicants had not met the relevant building and lease conditions. The judge rejected those arguments. He found that the exemption stating the Act “shall not bind” certain State bodies did not prevent them from using its provisions as lessees, provided they met the statutory conditions.
The court also found that the permanent buildings on the premises had been erected by people entitled to the lessee’s interest, and that the requirements for acquisition were satisfied. In assessing those requirements, the judgment considered the buildings’ history and expert evidence about when they were constructed. The court accepted that the site’s buildings had changed over time and that a later warehouse section was not an improvement to the other buildings for the purposes of the relevant legislation.
The remaining dispute concerned price. The appellants said the site had substantial redevelopment potential within the Digital Hub area. The agency argued that the fee simple had little development value because the lease had decades left to run. The court concluded that the site was being used for business purposes at the relevant time and that development potential was a relevant pricing factor. It considered that the right to regain possession was remote, so only a small share of the site’s estimated value should be reflected in the price.
The judge added €17,500, bringing the total to €58,100. The judgment does not state that this amount was apportioned between the freehold owners and any intermediate interest holders, or set out a revised apportionment.