The Dublin Circuit Court assessed the freehold interest in premises held under a 1952 lease at €10,000 and said the price should also include the landlord’s reasonable conveyancing costs. Judge John O’Connor urged the parties to agree those costs; he said he was prepared to recommend an amount if they could not do so.
The judgment, delivered on 9 May 2024, arose from an appeal concerning the purchase price fixed by a County Registrar acting as arbitrator. GA Development Dublin ICAV, on behalf of its sub-fund GA Development Fund, and Technological University Dublin did not dispute the entitlement to acquire the freehold and intermediate interests in the premises. They disputed the price.
The premises formed part of the Kevin Street campus and were held under a lease dated 13 October 1952. The court said the parties’ valuers agreed that the freehold’s market value in the normal course was €10,000. It found there were no restrictive covenants affecting the purchaser’s acquisition right.
The judgment set out that the statutory valuation required a hypothetical willing purchaser and vendor, with regard to listed factors and other relevant matters. Judge O’Connor said the County Registrar could consider additional factors, including the value of restrictive covenants, but could not base the valuation on a €5 million time-limit provision in the parties’ wider sale contract. The court said any dispute about interpreting that contract belonged in a different legal forum.
That 2019 contract covered the Kevin Street campus and a second, smaller parcel held under a 1978 lease for a combined €140.123 million. The parties had provided for a €5 million reduction if the freehold interests were not acquired by an agreed date. The judgment records that the sum was initially retained and later reimbursed to the purchaser. The smaller parcel was not the subject of this appeal.
The court considered reasonable legal and valuation costs connected with conveyancing the freehold. It excluded costs of subsequent litigation, noting that those had been dealt with in an earlier High Court judgment. The Circuit Court’s judgment does not state a final total including conveyancing fees: it invited agreement and offered a recommendation if agreement failed.