High Court, upon application by plaintiff receivers, grants judgement in the sum of €432,917.43 in arrears of rent due by a defendant lessee for 40 car park spaces, on the grounds that an attempt to surrender the lease by the defendant in 2011 was not valid as he did not comply with the time limits of a break clause set out in the lease, and that he had not raised a bona fide defence to the claim.
Plaintiffs seek summary judgement in the sum of €432,917.43, this being the arrears of rent payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant on the leases up to and including 2016 - plaintiff joint receivers appointed on 11 October 2013 over certain assets of two individuals - included in the assets was the landlord's interest in 40 leases from July 1996 which were granted for a period of 35 years over 40 car park spaces - 40 substantial identical indentures of lease between the first company demised into a second car park company - in April 1997 the interest of the first car park company became vested in the two individuals - by memorandum of agreement in December 1997 the defendant purchased the interest in the second company - the defendant covenanted that he would pay an annual rent in respect of the 40 car park spaces of varying amounts yearly for 15 years in advance of the 1st November each year - parties included a "break option" whereby the defendant will be entitled to surrender his interest in the leases by serving not less than three months notice in writing to the landlord prior to any of the required surrender dates being five years apart - in June 2011 the defendant gave notice of surrender to the landlords and executed deeds of surrender in respect of each of the leases - the two individuals brought Circuit Court proceedings against the defendant in respect of arrears in the amount of €15,998.70 in relation to the leases and a judgment in default of appearance was obtained in that amount - the defendant subsequently fully satisfied that judgement in respect of the arrears and in respect of the break clause - two individuals proceeded on the basis that the break clause option had not been clearly exercised - counsel on behalf of the defendant argued that the same time as the defendant acquired the interests of the second company he also entered an agreement with the first company - defendant has not raised a bona fide defence - judgment granted against the defendant.