[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Crofter Properties Ltd. v. Genport Ltd. [2007] IEHC 81 (23 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2007/H81.html Cite as: [2007] IEHC 81

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation No: [2007] IEHC 81

THE HIGH COURT

Commercial

2005 No. 1624 P 2006 28COM

2005 No. 2096 P 2006 19 COM

2005 No. 3212 P 2005 89 COM

BETWEEN/

CROFTER PROPERTIES LIMITED

PLAINTIFF

AND

GENPORT LIMITED

DEFENDANT

Ruling of Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan given on 23^rd March, 2007.

This ruling is supplemental to the judgment delivered by me in these proceedings yesterday, 22^nd March, 2007.

Counsel for the parties made submissions today on the form of orders to be made in each of the three proceedings in accordance with the judgment and made applications in relation to costs. This ruling records the decisions made on the applications for costs and on the form of orders.

In the Rent proceedings [2005 1624 P.] [2006 28 COM], there will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of €946,434.87 in respect of rent and insurance now due. There will also be a stay on the entry of that judgment until the 5^th April, 2007. There will be no order as to costs.

The orders proposed in my judgment will be made in the Covenant proceedings [2005 3212 P.] [2005 89 COM]. The following orders will be made.

An order restraining the defendant from continuing in occupation under s. 28 of the Landlord and Tennant (Amendment) Act 1980 of the premises known as Sachs Hotel, Morehampton Road in the city of Dublin, being the property comprised in folios 2012, 2014, 2311 and 418 of the Register of Freeholders in the city of Dublin. Execution on foot of that order will not issue provided there is compliance with each of the following conditions:

1. Payment to the plaintiff of €946,438.87 being the agreed sum now due in respect of rent and insurance on or before the 5^th April, 2007.

2. Production by the defendant to the plaintiff on or before the 19^th April, 2007 of proof of discharge of €160,905.01 in respect of rates due at the date of hearing on the premises.

3. Payment to the plaintiff of rent of €140,634.06 per quarter on or before each due date in accordance with the terms of the expired lease dated the 12^th May, 1981 (1^st February, 1^st May, 1^st August and 1^st November, in each year).

4. Production by the defendant to the plaintiff on or before each due date in accordance with the demand from Dublin City Council of proof of discharge of the rates then due on the premises.

5. Payment to the plaintiff of the amount due in respect of insurance paid under the expired lease within 14 days of the date of demand.

On a failure by the defendant to comply with any one of the above conditions on the specified date (such failure to be proved by the service and filing of an affidavit from the plaintiff's solicitor deposing to the facts constituting such failure) this order shall be in full force and effect two clear working days after the service of the said affidavit on the defendant in accordance with the liberty below and shall remain in full force and effect for so long as the defendant purports to remain in occupation of the premises under s. 28 of the Landlord and Tennant (Amendment) Act 1980.

Liberty to the plaintiff to serve any further documents in these proceedings (including for the purposes of execution) on the defendant by serving same on the defendant's solicitors P.C. Halpenny & Co. at their offices between 9am and 5pm on a working day

An order that the plaintiff recover its costs against the defendant with the usual order for taxation ,a certificate for discovery and a stay on the order for costs for 21 days and in the event of an appeal within 21 days until the determination of the appeal.

In the injunction proceedings [2005 2096 P.] [2006 19 COM] on consent an order discharging the undertaking of the defendant recorded in the order of the High Court (White J.) of the 11^th July, 2005 and recording in place thereof the following undertaking given by Counsel on behalf of the defendant to continue until the determination of these proceedings or further order:

"The defendant will not carry out any works contrary to clause 2(j) of the lease save insofar as the Circuit Court (or the High Court on appeal) may require such works to be done as a condition of granting a new lease."

The injunction proceedings are adjourned for hearing to Wednesday, 18^th April, at 11 a.m.

Approved: Finlay Geoghegan J.