The High Court has refused a landlord’s application for summary judgment in a dispute over rent, service charges and legal costs, directing that the case proceed to a plenary hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 25 July 2022, Ms Justice Bolger said Fiona Grant had set out a credible basis for disputing Gradual Investment Limited’s claim. The court did not decide what rent was owed or determine the other disputed claims.
The company sought €142,412.69, principally for rent it said was unpaid between January 2016 and July 2020, along with interest, service-charge shortfalls and costs. The parties agreed that summary judgment was appropriate only if it was very clear that the defendant had no defence.
The dispute centred on whether rent had been reviewed in July 2014 and set at €52,200 plus VAT a year. The company said it had. Grant disputed that figure and relied on an October 2014 letter referring to a reduced rent of €29,520 inclusive of VAT and seeking agreement on rent for a later period. The judge said that letter appeared inconsistent with the company’s evidence that a review had set the rent at €52,200 plus VAT.
A 2016 abatement agreement provided for reduced rent and referred to an agreed annual rent of €52,000 plus VAT through July 2019. The company argued that Grant’s alleged breach made the agreement void and restored the higher rent. Grant disputed that she had breached it in a way that invalidated the agreement. She acknowledged a small shortfall over three months in 2017, which she said had been corrected, and argued that it should not undo the whole arrangement.
Justice Bolger said the court was not satisfied this was a straightforward breach restoring an agreed rent. Whether a rent review had taken place, and what rent applied if the abatement agreement fell away, were matters for the trial judge. Grant could seek discovery and give oral evidence.
The judge also directed the service-charge and legal-cost claims to plenary hearing. She said there was a dispute over whether the landlord or the management company was entitled to the service charges, and whether legal costs connected with earlier Circuit Court proceedings could be claimed in this case. She did not determine whether the summary summons properly included rent arrears accruing after July 2020.
Justice Bolger’s indicative view was that the costs of the summary judgment motion should be costs in the cause. She listed the case for mention on 29 July to hear any further submissions on costs and any final orders sought. The judgment records the application’s refusal and direction to plenary hearing; it does not state the outcome of that later mention.