Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal: (a) allows appeal to a limited extent and overturns the decision of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s claims in their entirety against the respondent, save for the claim that he suffered direct economic loss consequential upon the respondent’s alleged failure to maintain premises which he occupied in Sligo town on foot of an oral periodic tenancy, on the ground that the court was not satisfied that the proceedings could fairly be categorised as frivolous and vexatious, and nor should the entire proceedings be struck out or dismissed pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; (b) dismisses all other grounds of appeal on the grounds that: (i) the appellant's claim for mental distress arising from breaches of the contract of tenancy did not fall within the narrow exceptions set out in the case law to the general rule that damages for worry or mental distress which have not given rise to psychiatric injury arising out of a breach of contract are not recoverable, and consequently the trial judge was correct to strike out this aspect of the claim; (ii) the appellant’s claim, which sought compensation for alleged damage to his reputation, loss of confidence, mental distress, depression and various articulations of same were not justiciable, required to be struck out and were correctly dealt with by the trial judge; and (iii) the generalised claim based on alleged damage to the appellant’s reputation was likewise not maintainable and was correctly struck out by the trial judge; and (c) directs that the appellant deliver an amended statement of claim confining his claim to the specific grounds in relation to his claim for reliefs, including damages, for breach of express or implied covenants, which includes the covenant to repair in addition to the ground that he suffered direct economic loss as a consequence of the respondent’s alleged failure to maintain the premises, as was permitted by order of the High Court.
Whelan J (nem diss): Appeal of a decision of the High Court dismissing the appellant’s claims against the respondent, save for the claim that he suffered direct economic loss consequential upon the respondent’s alleged failure to maintain premises which he occupied in Sligo town on foot of an oral periodic tenancy - landlord and tenant law - the rule in Henderson v Henderson - res judicata - the appellant was granted an oral periodic tenancy in or about May 1978 by the respondent’s predecessor over part of the 2nd Floor in a building which he occupied for the purposes of carrying out a printing business - the appellant alleged that since 2006, the respondent failed to carry out essential repairs to the premises and that this failure impacted negatively on his printing business - the respondent claims that the appellant acted unreasonably by preventing access to the property, frustrating necessary repairs including those necessitated by the terms of a Fire Safety Notice - there was litigation between the parties in relation to a notice to quit issued on the appellant, Notice of Intention to Claim Relief pursuant to the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act, 1980 and various appeals - the appellant issued the current plenary summons on the 7th April, 2016 claiming damages for a number of alleged wrongs - the respondent sought to have the appellant’s claim dismissed, or in the alternative struck out, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the basis that the issues raised were res judicata having been determined in prior proceedings, that the claims amounted to Henderson v. Henderson abuse of process, were frivolous and vexatious, factually unsustainable, bound to fail and were statute barred - the trial judge dismissed the appellant's claim on all but one ground, that he suffered direct economic loss consequential upon the respondent’s alleged failure to maintain premises which he occupied on foot of an oral periodic tenancy - whether the appellant's claim was res judicata - whether the appellant's claim fail foul of the Rule in Henderson v Henderson - whether the Court correctly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the claim - whether the appellant's claim was frivolous and vexatious - whether the appellant could recover for mental distress caused by breaches of the tenancy - whether the matters were statute barred - appeal allowed to a limited extent - directions as to statement of claim given.
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.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now