Summary of High Court Judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff, the lessee of a premises in The Shopping Centre (sub-let to a tenant operating an entertainment outlet), applied for interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain the Defendant from carrying out works in a 586-space car park adjoining the premises. The Plaintiff contends the Defendant's works (including creation of a taxi area and erection of a compound) unlawfully interfere with the Plaintiff's lease rights to use the car park, alleging those rights constitute an easement. The Defendant contends the lease permits the works and that damages are adequate. Proceedings issued on 27 March 2026; an ex parte short-service order was made on 2 April 2026. The interlocutory application was heard on 24 and 29 April 2026. Judge Bolger delivered judgment on 15 May 2026, refusing the application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory (including mandatory) injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant's works in the car park pending trial.
- Whether the Plaintiff's right to shared use of the 586-space car park under clause 4 of the lease amounts to an easement enforceable by injunction.
- Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the Plaintiff if the works proceed and the Plaintiff later succeeds at trial.
- How the balance of convenience (including delay and adequacy of the Plaintiff's undertaking as to damages) should be resolved.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The lease confers a right to shared use of the 586 car park spaces; that right is an easement and a constitutionally protected property right.
- The permanent loss of 26 spaces for the taxi area is a detriment not permitted by clause 4; interference with the easement cannot be adequately remedied by damages (relying on authorities such as AIB Plc v Diamond and O'Flaherty's).
- The Plaintiff would suffer business and economic loss (including to prospective change of use plans) that would be difficult or impossible to quantify in damages, justifying an injunction to maintain the status quo.
Defendant's Arguments
- The Plaintiff does not have an easement; clause 4 permits the Defendant to carry out works and implement car parking changes, and the loss of 26 spaces leaves ample parking.
- Damages are an adequate remedy even if the Plaintiff has property rights; the balance of convenience favours refusing the injunction.
- The Plaintiff delayed in bringing the application and has not given sufficient information to support its undertaking as to damages.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| AIB Plc v Diamond [2011] IEHC 505, [2012] 3 IR 549 |
That damages may be inadequate for certain infringements of property rights (springboard injunction context) and that allowing a defendant to keep the benefit until trial can produce irremediable loss. |
The Plaintiff relied on it to argue damages are inadequate; the Court accepted the case is relevant but held the decision was fact-specific and did not establish that damages are never adequate in property-rights cases. |
| O'Flaherty's (Nassau Street) Ltd v The Setanta Centre Unlimited Company [2020] IEHC 272 |
Highlighted the risk that refusing injunctions in property-rights cases might enable well-resourced defendants to buy out rights; discussed irremediable loss where restoration is impossible. |
The Court treated it as persuasive on the danger of allowing compensation to substitute for rights but distinguished the present case because the alleged loss here is remediable. |
| Merck Sharp and Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare Ltd [2019] IESC 65 |
Established the flexible nature of the interlocutory injunction remedy in Irish law. |
The Court applied the principle of flexibility from the Supreme Court in assessing adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. |
| London and Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbrokes Retail Parks Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 307 |
UK authority recognising a tenant's right to park in shared car park can constitute an easement. |
The Court found this and similar UK authorities persuasive (in absence of Irish authority) in concluding the Plaintiff has a strong case that its shared car-park right is an easement. |
| Duchess of Bedford House RTM Co Ltd & Ors v Campden Hillgate Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ. 1470 |
UK authority on shared car park rights as easements. |
The Court considered it persuasive support for the conclusion that the Plaintiff's shared parking right could be an easement. |
| Square Management Ltd v Dunnes Stores Dublin Company [2017] IECA 256 |
Interpreted lease provisions to permit reconfiguration of common areas and held such works did not amount to permanent interference with demised premises where car-park capacity increased. |
The Defendant relied on it; the Court distinguished Square because the reconfiguration there increased total spaces, whereas here the taxi area reduced 26 spaces. |
| Ryan v Dengrove DAC [2021] IECA 38 |
Emphasised that assertions of loss require an evidential basis and expert claims must explain factual assumptions. |
The Court relied on this principle to criticise the Plaintiff's speculative and unquantified evidence of loss. |
| Somnus GMC Waterford Limited and Anor v Flynn and Anor [2025] IEHC 60 |
Addressed availability and calculation of losses in similar commercial contexts. |
The Court referred to its own prior finding that such calculations are ordinarily available, applying that reasoning to find the Plaintiff should have provided more quantification. |
| Tesco Ireland Limited v Multi-Home Retail Limited [Trading as Choice Stores] [2026] IEHC 276 |
Related to commercial losses and adequacy of damages in interlocutory contexts. |
Used as supporting authority for the proposition that quantification of commercial loss is ordinarily practicable and that courts should be sceptical of vague claims. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded in stages. It first considered delay and found the Plaintiff's application was brought promptly once the Plaintiff could reasonably be aware of the works. The Court then assessed whether the Plaintiff had established a "strong case" for mandatory relief. Relying on persuasive UK authorities and the lease terms, the Court concluded the Plaintiff has a strong case that (1) the taxi area removing 26 spaces is not permitted by clause 4, and (2) the Plaintiff's shared right to park is an easement.
Having found a strong case, the Court moved to the balance of convenience, centring on adequacy of damages. It analysed the authorities (including AIB Plc v Diamond and O'Flaherty's) and concluded those decisions do not establish a blanket rule that damages are always inadequate for infringements of property rights. The Court examined the nature and extent of the detriment alleged by the Plaintiff and found the loss to be remediable: the Defendant admitted it could reinstate the spaces if required and committed not to rely on planning permission to resist removal of the taxi area. The Defendant had also provided additional adjacent spaces.
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's evidence on loss as vague and speculative, noting the Plaintiff had not provided actuarial or other quantification despite the Court's expectation that such analysis is ordinarily practicable in commercial cases. On that basis the Court concluded damages would be an adequate remedy. Taking into account other factors (clause 4's allowance for authorised users, lack of an entitlement to a minimum number of spaces, and the Defendant's undertakings), the balance of convenience favoured refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief.
Holding and Implications
REFUSED
Holding: The Court refused the Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunctive relief restraining the Defendant from carrying out the works, removing the compound, reinstating the car park layout, or preventing the reduction in car park spaces.
Implications: The direct effect is that the Defendant may continue the works pending trial. The Court indicated an indicative view on costs that the Plaintiff is entitled to its costs to be adjudicated upon in default of agreement, with a stay on execution of any costs order pending the final outcome of the proceedings. The opinion does not state that it creates a new binding precedent; its findings were specific to the facts before the Court.
Additional Procedural Notes
The Court scheduled a mention for 10:00 am on 11 June 2026. Counsel recorded in the judgment: Counsel for the Plaintiff — Attorney Fitzpatrick SC, Attorney Nerney BL; Counsel for the Defendant — Attorney Smith SC, Attorney Shanley BL.
Anonymization Note
All individual and organizational names in this summary have been replaced with generic placeholders (e.g., "Plaintiff", "Defendant", "Judge Bolger", "Attorney [Last Name]") to preserve anonymity, while preserving the substantive content of the judgment.