Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Interlocutory injunction refused where applicant failed to establish prima facie case for possession
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses to grant interlocutory injunction granting possession of a property to the plaintiff, on the grounds that: (a) the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure to the court as it failed to disclose that it has a subsidiary company which trades as a jewellers in the vicinity of the property or the ongoing issues in relation to the condition of the property which remain unresolved and in respect of which the first named defendant seeks to claim a set-off and/or counterclaim against rent; (b) the Court was not satisfied that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for possession; (c) balance of convenience lies in favour of refusing the relief in circumstances where the arrears of rent have been discharged and undertakings furnished in respect of future rents and where the first named defendant is entitled to pursue its claim for a new tenancy in the Circuit Court; and (d) the plaintiff failed to establish that damages would not be an adequate remedy.
Application for an interlocutory injunction seeking possession of a property - the first named defendant is in occupation of the property pursuant to a lease granted by the plaintiff’s predecessors in title - the first defendant runs a jewellery shop from the premises - rent was fixed at €65,000 per annum payable quarterly in advance - the lease contains a break option entitling the landlord to determine the lease at the end of the fifth year by giving not less than six calendar months’ prior notice - the plaintiff gave notice of its intention to determine the lease by letter dated 22 November 2018 - the first named defendant failed to pay any rent to the plaintiff between 16 January 2019 and 7 June 2019 - the first named defendant served a Notice of Intention to Claim Relief pursuant to s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 - the plaintiff commenced proceedings seeking a declaration that the plaintiff had validly exercised the break option together with an order requiring the first named defendant to deliver up vacant possession of the property - the plaintiff brought the within motion seeking vacant possession - all rent arrears were discharged and the first named defendant gave an undertaking to discharge the rent payable monthly in advance to the plaintiff and comply with all covenants in the lease pending the determination of the application - whether the failure to pay rent due and owing automatically brings to an end to the first named defendant's right to continue in occupation - where the balance of convenience lay - whether damages would be an adequate remedy - application refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
