The High Court dismissed Edward Walsh’s proceedings against his landlord and two receivers, ruling that his claims over disruption from neighbouring construction works were bound to fail. The decision did not determine whether Walsh was entitled to a new tenancy, which was being considered in separate Circuit Court proceedings.
The case concerned the Long Island Bar, which Walsh operated on the ground floor and basement of premises at 103 and 104 Upper Dorset Street, Dublin. Corn Circle Ltd owned the premises; Patrick Dillon and Paul McCann had been appointed receivers. The adjoining site was being developed by River Dublin 1 SARL, which was not a party to the case.
Walsh alleged that the development caused noise, vibration, dust, odours, damage and other disruption, and that the landlord and receivers breached his right to quiet enjoyment under a 2013 lease. He also alleged that they had facilitated or joined in wrongful acts by the developer. Those were his claims, not findings by the court.
The judge said the lease contained an express quiet-enjoyment clause limited to disturbance by the landlord or people claiming under or in trust for it. That clause displaced the broader implied covenant under section 41 of Deasy’s Act. The court said Walsh’s alternative position—that the clause no longer applied after the original lease expired—did not assist him: if a renewal existed, the clause continued; if not, he occupied without a lease and section 41 did not apply.
The court found no evidence to support Walsh’s suspicion that River Dublin was connected to the defendants or was acting as their servant or agent. It concluded that no amendment based on that conjecture could save the claim for damages arising from the development. The court also found that the pleadings gave no basis for holding the defendants responsible for the developer’s alleged negligence, nuisance or slander of title, and identified no proposed amendment that could supply one.
A separate dispute concerned a door between the premises and an adjacent yard. The receivers had undertaken not to interfere with the door or yard, and Walsh accepted that he no longer needed an injunction. The judge said the continuing undertaking could be enforced even after the proceedings ended.
The court dismissed the proceedings against the defendants as bound to fail. Claims about entitlement to a new lease or wrongful termination were left to the separate Circuit Court case and could not be pursued in another guise in this action.