The High Court has upheld the refusal of a new tenancy to Like It Love It Products Limited for premises at Blackrock Town Hall, excluding the library and rates office. The court found the letting was made for temporary convenience and was excluded from the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980.
The company appealed the Circuit Court’s refusal of its application. It argued that the written agreement did not identify a genuine temporary convenience, as required for the letting to fall outside the 1980 Act. It also argued that any temporary convenience attached to the initial fixed term had ended, and that the Council had not shown that granting a new tenancy would conflict with good estate management.
Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council said the agreement and a later extension letter expressly described the arrangement as a temporary convenience letting. The Council also relied on planning permission for a proposed development involving the premises. The company argued that the Vocational Education Committee, which had obtained permission, was a separate body from the Council.
In a judgment dated 5 February 2008, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy said the agreement of 26 January 1998 was unambiguous. It recorded that the tenant had requested possession on a temporary convenience basis for the purposes of section 75(4) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, and identified the Council’s statutory powers, functions or duties as the relevant convenience. A letter of 22 July 1998 extended the arrangement month to month as a temporary convenience letting.
The judge also held that the company’s conduct, the agreement and its renewal, and the level of rent prevented it from denying the temporary nature of the arrangement. He noted that the company’s principal had read and signed the agreement with independent legal advice.
The court concluded that section 75(4)(b) of the 1963 Act excluded the letting from the 1980 Act. It added that, even if the letting were not excluded on that basis, the premises did not qualify as a tenement under section 5 of the 1980 Act. The judgment therefore affirmed the Circuit Court’s refusal of a new tenancy. It did not make a separate order on the company’s claims for compensation for improvements or disturbance.