Introduction

The case of Verbenagrove Ltd v Evans & Anor ([2025] IEHC 151) before the High Court of Ireland addresses a contentious landlord–tenant dispute primarily over the validity of a forfeiture. The Tenant, operating the Mulberry Garden restaurant in Donnybrook, sought a new lease after its previous tenancy expired, while the Landlords attempted to forfeit the lease following non-payment of rent and other disputes during complex negotiation and litigation processes.

The dispute is set against the backdrop of extensive litigation history, involving lengthy proceedings in the Circuit Court where issues such as the service of a forfeiture notice, the nature of re-entry, and allegations of delay by the Landlords were central. The current application before the High Court relates specifically to a motion for a stay on further hearings (the second module) pending an appeal of the first stage’s decision. Both parties have produced significant evidence, with the Landlords arguing that proceeding without a stay would cause unnecessary waste of judicial resources if their appeal later succeeded, while the Tenant is concerned about further prejudice in its opportunity to resume its business.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Justice Barry O'Donnell delivered the judgment on 14 March 2025. The key findings of the Court were as follows:

• The Circuit Court had determined, after a five-day trial, that the forfeiture of the lease was invalid, primarily because the forfeiture notice and subsequent re-entry did not meet the requirement of being “peaceable.”
• The service of the forfeiture notice was deemed invalid due to it being posted in an unused letter box and being served without proper forewarning.
• The re-entry was characterized as forcible, given the evidence that a locksmith employed an angle grinder to damage locks after entry through a garden gate.
• The judgment highlighted procedural delays on the part of the Landlords, which contributed to a complex dispute and raised issues relating to a disproportionate cost of litigation relative to the underlying commercial value.
• The court analyzed the principles governing stay applications, concluding that although there are arguable grounds for the appeal, the balance of justice does not support a stay of the second module, primarily because the interests of justice favor the certainty provided by the Circuit Court’s reasoned written judgment in favor of the Tenant.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively refers to established case law and authorities on stay applications and the requirements for forfeiture by re-entry:

• Brompton v. McDonald (No.3) [2022] IECA 5: This case was cited to underline the principle that an appellant must establish arguable grounds for appeal. In Brompton, the court stressed that without arguable grounds, the application for a suspensory order must fail, thereby framing the approach to assessing the validity of the Landlords’ appeal.
• Jennings v. An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 61: Holland J.'s observations from this case provided guidance on balancing the risk of injustice when considering a stay. His insights highlight the inherent challenges of establishing an interim regime pending a final decision on the merits of an appeal.
• Okunade [[2012] 3 IR 152] and Krikke [[2020] IESC 42]: These authorities were used to explain that for forfeiture by re-entry, the entry must be "peaceable." The court critically analyzed the Landlords’ effort to break down locks using an angle grinder even after entering through an unlocked garden gate, concluding that such conduct did not meet the necessary standard.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning is multifaceted and rests on both the factual matrix and well-established legal principles:

• Forfeiture and Peaceable Re-Entry: The Court underscored that forfeiture by re-entry requires a peaceable method of regaining possession. By contrasting the relatively benign entry through an unlocked garden with the forcible measures (i.e., use of a locksmith and cutting locks) employed later, the judge essentially rejected an overly atomistic and artificial construction of peaceable re-entry.
• Arguable Grounds for Appeal: In line with Brompton v. McDonald, the Court determined that although there was a stateable basis for the appeal (particularly concerning the service of the forfeiture notice and the manner of re-entry), these grounds alone were insufficient to warrant a stay. The Landlords must prove not only that their appeal is genuine but also that the balance of justice tilts decisively in their favor.
• Balance of Justice and Risk of Injustice: The court emphasized the need to minimize overall injustice. Given that the Tenant enjoyed a favorable decision in the Circuit Court after extensive hearings and that proceeding with the second module could unduly prejudice the Tenant’s commercial interests, the balance of justice did not support the impartment of a stay. Moreover, potential compensation for any negative consequence through subsequent cost orders further weakened the Landlords’ argument.
• Procedural and Practical Considerations: The decision reflects concern over the inefficiencies and delays that have plagued the litigation. The Landlords’ own delays, including the protracted process of negotiating and litigating lease terms, significantly contributed to the complex factual background. This further substantiated the view that the appeal was not merely a strategic move to avoid immediate consequences, but rather a weak legal challenge on its merits.

Impact

This judgment has several significant implications for future landlord–tenant disputes:

• It clarifies that a balance of justice analysis in stay applications must weigh the interlocutory benefit of delaying proceedings against the cost of undue prejudice, particularly in commercial disputes where the operational viability of a business hangs in the balance.
• The ruling reinforces that forfeiture by re-entry must be executed through a genuinely peaceable process. Forced or aggressive methods, even if preceded by an apparently innocuous entry, will likely be found invalid.
• By endorsing the significance of a well-reasoned written judgment from a full trial (as was delivered in the Circuit Court), the decision sets a precedent for preserving judicial efficiency and reducing wasteful litigation when an issue has been substantially determined.
• Future cases may see stricter judicial scrutiny on the timing and methods employed by landlords in enforcing forfeiture provisions, especially where commercial interests and the rights of tenants to a new lease are at stake.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The case engages with several nuanced legal concepts:

• Forfeiture Notice: This is a formal declaration by the landlord that the lease is being terminated due to the tenant’s breach (e.g., non-payment of rent). In this situation, the method of service (placing the notice in an unused letter box) was critical because it did not meet legal requirements.
• Peaceable Re-Entry: Legally, if a landlord re-enters the property after a breach, it must be done in a calm and non-coercive manner. The judgment illustrates that even after an initial non-contentious entry (via the garden gate), subsequent actions involving forcible measures (e.g., cutting locks with an angle grinder) invalidate the claim of re-entry being “peaceable.”
• Stay Application: A request to temporarily halt legal proceedings pending the resolution of an appeal. The court examines both whether the appeal is on sound legal footing and if delaying further hearings would minimize overall injustice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Verbenagrove Ltd v Evans & Anor establishes critical guidelines regarding the enforcement of forfeiture by re-entry. The High Court’s analysis underscores that for a forfeiture to be valid, the re-entry must be truly peaceable, and any aggressive or coercive actions can render the forfeiture invalid. Furthermore, the judgment clarifies the stringent requirements for a stay application, emphasizing that even a de novo review does not automatically favor a stay if the balance of justice would be upset.

The decision is significant for commercial landlord–tenant disputes as it reinforces the necessity of judicial expediency, proper procedural compliance, and a balanced approach that safeguards both the interim rights of tenants and the long-term interests of landlords. This detailed reasoning will doubtless influence the structuring of future appeals and the careful drafting of forfeiture provisions in lease agreements.