The High Court refused an interlocutory injunction sought by catering operator Damien Sheridan in a dispute over the restaurant at The Quays Kitchen in Temple Bar, Dublin. Mr Justice Clarke said there was a fair issue to be tried about whether the defendants had agreed to grant a five-year lease, but that damages would be an adequate remedy if Mr Sheridan later succeeded in his claim.
The ruling, delivered on 4 April 2006, concerned an application for urgent interim relief. It did not decide whether a lease or other long-term arrangement had been agreed. The judge said that question remained for trial.
Mr Sheridan’s case was that, in August 2005, he and the defendants’ group operations officer agreed that Damal Catering Limited would take a five-year lease at an annual rent of €100,000, payable weekly, with the rent fixed for 18 months and reviewable afterwards. He said a €30,000 deposit was required and that the defendants’ solicitors would prepare the lease. After Damal entered voluntary liquidation in December 2005, Mr Sheridan said he agreed to take a lease on the same terms personally.
The defendants denied reaching any concluded long-term agreement. They said discussions concerned a possible licence to provide restaurant and catering services, not a lease. The judge identified significant issues for trial, including whether the arrangement would have given Mr Sheridan or Damal the possession required for a lease, how rent would be reviewed, and whether the absence of a written agreement could be overcome by part performance. He described these as major hurdles, but said they did not prevent a fair issue from being tried at this stage.
Mr Sheridan had been required to leave by 26 February 2006, and the locks were changed. By the time proceedings began on 1 March, the defendants had arranged for another operator to provide restaurant and catering services. The judge considered that any business losses, including likely future losses from the disruption, could be assessed in damages. He found no suggestion that the defendants could not pay an award.
The judge also said that Mr Sheridan had known from a 30 January meeting that the defendants did not intend to continue the arrangement beyond late February, and had allowed the notice period to expire before starting proceedings. He further considered that an injunction could require the parties to make day-to-day business decisions together while in dispute. Those matters would also have weighed against granting relief.
The court therefore made no interlocutory order. The ruling addressed only the request for an injunction; it did not resolve the underlying contractual claim.