Recent Landlord and Tenant discusses balance of convenience test in granting of Injunction
In a recent case of Oysters Shuckers Limited -v- Architectural Manufacturing Support (EU) Limited and Wooi Heong Tan the High Court was asked to consider whether an injunction would be granted to prevent a Landlord taking possession of a property in circumstances where there were significant arrears in rent.
Mr. Justice Sanfey made it clear that the fact that there were arrears of rent did not preclude the Plaintiff tenant from bringing the application before the Court.
Mr. Justice Sanfey said that he had to weigh the flexibility of the remedy of an injunction against the need to minimise the injustice in circumstances where the legal rights of either party had not yet been determined.
He was satisfied that, as argued by the Plaintiff that it was a fair question to be tried as to whether the disputed Lease was binding and effective. He had to determine whether this was enough for the Plaintiff to be entitled to an injunction to prevent the defendant Landlord from taking possession.
The Plaintiff had accepted that he was in arrears of rent and it would appear that the Plaintiff indicated an inability to continue to pay the rent.
Taking this into account the Judge said that the Plaintiff had not been able to satisfy him that irreparable harm would be done by the refusal of the injunction or that damages would not be an adequate remedy and accordingly he refused to grant the injunction.
This case highlights that in order to obtain an injunction you must be able to establish a fair question is to be tried and even if you do establish that you must show that irreparable harm would be caused by the refusal of the injunction and that damages would not be an adequate remedy if you as the Plaintiff ultimately succeed at the trail of the action.
For any advice in relation to commercial litigation or landlord and tenant matter please do not hesitate to contact Brendan Dillon, Donna Phelan or Conor White on 01-2960666.
