32 October 2025
By Michael Smith
Recent case law: Mark Tottenham
THE LAW...
Tenant’s failure to pay rent and
charges at shopping centre
results in summary judgment
for landlord
BVK Elekr 2 Liffey Phse 1 ICAV v Elie
Gsrobrs Ld [2025] IEHC 420 (High Cour,
O'Donnell Brry J, 23 July 2025)
The High Court granted summary judgment in
favour of the landlord for arrears of rent, service
charge, insurance contribution, and licence fee
totalling €276,041.44 against the tenant of a
restaurant unit in a shopping centre. The court
rejected the tenant's defences, which included
alleged discrepancies in the accounts and
figures claimed, the status of the landlord to
recoup the sum, and arguments related to the
landlord’s insurance obligations for business
interruption due to Covid-19 restrictions. The
court found the landlord's figures accurate and
reliable, confirmed the landlord's title to the
property, and determined that the lease did not
require the landlord to insure against business
interruption caused by public health
restrictions. The tenant's interpretation of the
lease's suspension of rent clause was also
found to be incorrect, as it related to physical
damage and not regulatory restrictions like
those imposed during the pandemic.
Termination notice was valid
where landlord established
an intent to sell residential
property
Pszonk v Residenil Tenncies Bord [2025]
IEHC 291 (High Cour, Pheln J, 23 My 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal from the
Residential Tenancies Board by a tenant
challenging the validity of a Notice of
Termination, which was served on the grounds
that the landlord intended to enter into an
enforceable contract for the sale of the property
within nine months. The Tribunal had
previously determined that the landlord had
the requisite intention to sell when the notice
was served, and the tenant's overholding did
not negate this intention. The Tribunal's
decision was found to be consistent with
established legal principles and supported by
sucient evidence, including a statutory
declaration and the landlord's testimony.
...UNTO
ITSELF
Increased scarring from post-
surgical infection justifies
€44,460 award
Milmoe v Chzis [2025] IECA 149 (Cour of
Appel, Meenn J, 28 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's
decision to award €44,460 to the plainti for
increased scarring and other damages due to
post-surgical infection after breast surgery,
arming the original judgment. The High Court
had found negligence in the post-operative
care provided by the clinic, leading to the
plainti's infection and subsequent increased
scarring. The Court of Appeal rejected the
clinic's appeal, finding no error in the trial
judge's assessment of damages.
Court rejects claims
of ineffective legal
representation in trial for
assault causing harm
The Direcor of Public Prosecuions v O'Connor
[2023] IECA 340 (Cour of Appel, McCrhy J,
25 July 2023)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal
against conviction brought by an appellant
who had been found guilty in the Circuit
Criminal Court of assault causing harm
following a violent altercation during
construction work. The appeal was based on
allegations of ineective legal representation,
specifically the failure to obtain an independent
medical report, inadequacies in the cross-
examination of witnesses, and the failure to
highlight potential inconsistencies regarding
the victim's injuries in the closing speech. The
Court found that the appellant's legal team had
acted within the bounds of competent
representation and that the evidence—both
medical and testimonial—did not support a
serious risk of miscarriage of justice. The
original conviction and sentence (three years
imprisonment, suspended in full) were
therefore upheld, with the Court finding that
the appellant had not discharged the heavy
burden required to overturn the verdict.
32 October-November 2025
October 2025 33
Aircraft insurance claim to
proceed in Ireland despite
parallel English action thanks
to exclusive jurisdiction clause
WWTAI Airopco II DAC v Globl Aerospce
Underwriing Mngers [Europe] SAS  Ors
[2025] IEHC 452 (High Cour, Quinn J, 7 Augus
2025)
The High Court refused applications by a group
of insurers to stay or strike out proceedings
brought by aircraft leasing companies seeking
indemnity and damages under insurance
policies for aircraft and engine losses following
the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The court
found that while related proceedings were
ongoing in England concerning overlapping
losses and insurance policies, the plaintis
were entitled to proceed in Ireland as provided
for in the exclusive jurisdiction clauses of their
policies. The court determined there was no
certainty that the English actions would resolve
all issues or bind the parties in Ireland, and that
a stay would be unjust given the plaintis’ right
to have their claims heard expeditiously. The
court also rejected the argument that the
claims were premature or bound to fail, finding
that the interpretation of contingent and direct
cover under the policies was a matter for trial
in Ireland.
Damages awarded for mental
distress where solicitor
negligence leaves property
unmarketable for 15 years
O'Brien v O'Donnell [2025] IEHC 455 (High
Cour, Dignm J, 11 Augus 2025)
The High Court awarded the plainti €36,000
in general damages for mental distress and
€56,580 for costs incurred in a trustee
application, following the admitted negligence
and breach of contract by the defendants (the
vendor and the plainti’s former solicitors) in
a property transaction. The plainti, who
purchased an apartment as part of a linked
property sale and purchase, was left without
good and marketable title for over 15 years,
and was unable to sell or repair the apartment
due to issues with title documentation and
significant defects including damp and mould.
The court rejected claims for further financial
losses, aggravated damages, and diminution
in property value, finding insucient evidence
for those heads of damages and that much of
the plainti’s distress stemmed partly from her
own actions and unrelated health issues.
Ultimately, the court found the plainti had
proven her entitlement to damages for the
mental distress caused by being trapped in an
uninhabitable property without proper title,
but limited recovery on other grounds.
Refusal to reinstate
accommodation upheld for
applicant expelled for repeated
breaches of house rules
Dshevsky v Inernionl Proecion
Accommodion Services [2025] IEHC 478
(High Cour, Brr J, 5 Augus 2025)
The High Court refused an application by an
applicant, who had been granted subsidiary
protection but not refugee status, seeking
continued accommodation from the
authorities. The applicant argued that,
because he had judicially reviewed the refusal
of refugee status, he still qualified as an
applicant for international protection and was
entitled to accommodation under Irish and EU
law. However, the court found that the real
reason the applicant was no longer in State-
provided accommodation was due to repeated
breaches of accommodation-centre rules,
which led to his expulsion after an internal
review upheld the decision. The court held that
the judicial review proceedings had become
moot, as the entitlement to accommodation
was no longer a live issue, and did not meet
exceptions that would justify continuing the
case, such as public interest or broader legal
importance.
Conviction of mother set aside
where it was based solely on
unreliable statements made in
safeguarding assessment
The Direcor of Public Prosecuions v B K [2025]
IECA 179 (Cour of Appel, O'Moore J, 14 July
2025)
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against
the conviction of a mother found guilty by the
Circuit Court of multiple counts of sexual abuse
and child neglect relating to her three disabled
children. The only evidence against the
appellant consisted of statements she made
during a safeguarding assessment, conducted
not by police but by professionals engaged by
a statutory agency. These statements were
ruled admissible at retrial, but the Court of
Appeal found significant new evidence of
inducements, oppression and unfairness
during the assessment interviews—particularly
in the manner of questioning on the final
days—that had not been before the appellate
courts previously, rendering the confessions
unreliable. As the prosecution was based
solely on these statements, the Court quashed
the convictions, and, with the Director of Public
Prosecutions declining to pursue a retrial,
ordered the appellant's acquittal on all
charges.
Criminal trial provided
adequate remedy for man
retrieving bicycle to challenge
arrest
Hrford v Commissioner of An Grd Síochn
[2025] IEHC 476 (High Cour, Egn J, 26 Augus
2025)
The High Court refused an applicant leave to
seek judicial review of his arrest and impending
prosecution, following an incident where he
was arrested near a public-safety cordon while
retrieving a bicycle and later charged with
public order and theft oences. The court
determined that judicial review is not
appropriate in this case, as the applicant's
grievances, including claims of false
imprisonment and procedural unfairness, did
not meet the high threshold required for
intervention in ongoing criminal proceedings.
The judge found that issues raised relating to
factual disputes and alleged unlawful arrest
should be addressed during the District Court
trial or by way of a private law tort action, as
adequate alternative remedies are available.
Consequently, all associated reliefs sought —
including a declaration of unlawful arrest, the
prohibition of prosecution, compensation, and
waiver of court fees — were refused.
Minor was not entitled
to ‘special care’ as other
care options had not been
exhausted
JT [A Minor] v Child nd Fmily Agency [2025]
IEHC 316 (High Cour, O’Regn J, 29 My 2025)
The High Court refused to quash a decision of
the Special Care Referrals Committee of the
Child and Family Agency, which determined
that the applicant minor who was exposed to
drug-taking and criminality did not require
‘special care’ under s.23F of the Childcare Act
1991. The court found that the committee, as
an expert body, reasonably concluded that
other care options had not been fully explored
and that ‘special care’, being a measure of last
resort, was not warranted at this stage. The
court held that the committee’s decision was
neither irrational nor lacking in material to
support its conclusions, arming that the
committee’s expertise in assessing care
requirements was appropriately applied.
These reports were originally published on
Decisis, an online service that publishes reports
on all written judgments of the Irish superior
courts, and are republished by agreement.
October-November 2025 33

Loading

© 2015 Village Magazine

Back to Top