Bray Boxing Club Ltd & Anor v Wicklow County Council (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

In 1902, a local council acquired a shed at a harbour, known as the Harbour Shed. In 2007, part of this shed was leased by the council to trustees of an unincorporated boxing club, initially called St. Fergal’s Boxing Club. The shed was demolished in 2013, and a new purpose-built boxing gym, also named the Harbour Shed, was constructed on the site with public funds. In 2014, the original council was merged into a county council, which then let the new building to the same trustees.

On 5th June 2018, a violent incident occurred at the premises, resulting in one fatality and two injuries. Subsequently, the county council changed the locks and excluded the plaintiffs, who were occupying the premises at that time.

The plaintiffs commenced legal proceedings in August 2019, seeking various reliefs primarily concerning possession of the building and its contents, including a mandatory injunction to regain access. The county council denied the plaintiffs’ entitlement to possession and claimed the occupation was unlawful or, alternatively, that any licence had been terminated by the council’s resumption of possession. The parties exchanged pleadings, and the matter was ready for hearing except for an outstanding notice for particulars.

The plaintiffs brought an interlocutory motion in November 2020 seeking several orders, including declarations and an injunction restraining the defendant from terminating the plaintiffs’ legal interest or estate in possession without a court order. The plaintiffs later abandoned the claim for an interlocutory injunction allowing re-entry, limiting the application to the restraint on termination of their alleged interest.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the plaintiffs have a legal estate or interest in possession of the Harbour Shed that cannot be terminated by the defendant without a court order.
2. Whether the county council was entitled to change the locks and exclude the plaintiffs from the premises on 7th June 2018.
3. The nature and validity of any lease, periodic tenancy, or licence held by the plaintiffs or their predecessors.
4. The legal effect and validity of the 30 days’ notice to determine the licence served by the county council in November 2020.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The plaintiffs claim entitlement to a legal estate or interest in the premises, possibly as a lease, periodic tenancy, or licence, though the exact nature is unclear.
• They assert that they have been in occupation of the premises and that the council’s actions in changing the locks were unlawful.
• They contend that the premises have been used as a sports club with community access, consistent with the terms of a sports grant.
• They argue that the council’s demand for rent and termination attempts contradict an alleged understanding that no rent would be charged in recognition of the plaintiffs’ and their family’s sporting achievements.
• The plaintiffs express concern that the council’s eviction notice might circumvent ongoing litigation and cause irreparable harm, including financial loss and reputational damage.

Defendant's Arguments

• The county council denies that the plaintiffs ever had a lawful estate or interest in the premises and asserts that any occupation was unlawful.
• The council contends that the plaintiffs’ occupation ended when the locks were changed on 7th June 2018, and any licence was a bare licence terminable at will.
• The council maintains that the plaintiffs failed to pay rent due under the last licence and that the premises must be used as a boxing club in accordance with the sports grant conditions.
• The council asserts that the plaintiffs’ incorporation of a company post-dates the grant and lease arrangements and that the company has no involvement or entitlement in the premises.
• The council argues that it is entitled to issue notices terminating any licence and that the validity of such notices is a matter for trial, not interlocutory relief.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the historical and factual background, emphasizing the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the plaintiffs’ claimed legal interest. It noted that the plaintiffs failed to clearly identify the nature of their legal estate or interest, whether lease, tenancy, or licence, and failed to establish any intermediate interest between themselves and the council.

The court observed that the plaintiffs’ occupation was originally through an unincorporated club with trustees, not personally by the plaintiffs or the incorporated company, which was formed much later and has no proven connection to the original club or property rights.

The court found that the council’s actions in changing the locks followed a serious violent incident and that the council had repeatedly communicated with the plaintiffs regarding rent arrears and licence conditions. While the plaintiffs claimed the council used the incident as a pretext to evict them, the court held that the legality of the council’s possession and lock change depended on the plaintiffs’ entitlement, which was not established.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of an understanding that no rent would be charged, noting the existence of rent demands and signed agreements indicating payment obligations. It also found no evidential basis for the plaintiffs’ assertions of financial loss or reputational damage.

The court held that the 30-day notice served by the council was a valid exercise of rights if the plaintiffs held a licence terminable on notice, and that the court had no role in restraining such notice absent evidence of unlawful termination.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated entitlement to interlocutory relief restraining the council from terminating their alleged interest or possession.

Holding and Implications

The plaintiffs’ interlocutory motion was REFUSED.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for an injunction restraining the defendant from terminating their alleged legal interest or estate in the premises without a court order. The court found no clear legal basis or evidential foundation for the plaintiffs’ claim to such an interest. The refusal means the plaintiffs remain excluded from the premises pending determination of the substantive action. No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily affirms that interlocutory relief requires clear demonstration of entitlement and that licences terminable on notice may be ended by the licensor accordingly.