The High Court has found a strong case that a lease of the Donaghmede Inn was validly forfeited and that its landlord had shown a strong case for a mandatory order seeking return of the pub’s licence. The court did not specify the order: it said it would hear the parties on what order to make.
Mr Justice Nolan’s ruling, delivered on 18 June 2024, concerned an interim stage of proceedings brought by Lindat Limited against its tenant, The PW Plaza Café Bar Limited. The dispute centres on whether the tenant must return the publican’s licence after Lindat retook possession of the premises.
The lease was granted in September 2020 for ten years at a stated annual rent of €80,000. A first side letter provided for a two-year rent abatement. A second letter, dated the following day, said rent and other outgoings would begin only after refurbishment and trading, and provided for reduced rent during the first two trading years.
Lindat’s shares changed hands in July 2023. The following month it served a forfeiture notice and demanded €441,948.44 in rent, service charges and insurance premiums. It retook possession on 29 August 2023. The tenant later renewed the licence in its own name; the judgment records that the District Court certified Lindat was entitled to receive it.
The tenant argued that the second letter suspended payment until the premises opened and that it had spent more than €255,000 refurbishing the pub. It also relied on alleged representations and promissory estoppel. Lindat disputed the letter’s effect and questioned the evidence for the claimed expenditure, while accepting some money had been spent.
Justice Nolan said the second letter appeared to have been created without the lender’s required approval, and found at this stage that it lacked consideration. He rejected the argument that the tenant had never been in possession, pointing to the refurbishment works. On the balance of probabilities, he found a strong case for believing the forfeiture was valid. He said the issues about notice to Dublin City Council and the licence proceedings did not need to be decided at this stage; arguments about unconscionable bargaining and company law were left for trial.
The judge also rejected the tenant’s estoppel arguments at this stage. Considering the risk of harm, he accepted Lindat’s argument that the tenant might liquidate if it lost at trial, while Lindat could meet its undertaking as to damages if the tenant ultimately succeeded. He concluded that the least risk of harm lay in granting the orders sought, but deferred the form of the order for further submissions.